Abbotsley Limited & Anor v Pheasantland Limited & Ors

Introduction/Length of Judgment 1-9

The Land 10-14

The Claims 15-19

The Claimants 20-22

The Defendants 23-26

Consolidating the Claims 27-34

The Issues of Determination 35-39

The Evidence 40-43

The Claimants

The Defendants

The Water Issue 300-304

The Water Regulations 305-313

The Claimants’ Contentions 314-324

Construction of Agreements 325-329

Allegations of Water Trespass 395-398

Estoppel 399-408

The Fourth Deed of Variation 409-410

Interference with the Water Supply 411-443

Further Alleged Acts of Trespass Nuisance

Alleged Trespass on the Sheep Field 445

Alleged Trespass on the Jenny Wisson Wood 446-477

Alleged Acts of Trespass and/or Harassment 478-504

Forfeiture 505-508

Conclusion 544-545

This is the final judgment in these two consolidated claims brought by Vivien Inez Saunders (“Ms Saunders”), the second claimant, and the company of which she is the sole director and shareholder of Abbotsley Limited (“Abbotsley”), the first claimant.

The first claim is brought by Abbotsley and Ms Saunders against Pheasantland Limited (“Pheasantland”) and fifteen named individuals who are either owners or occupiers of the permanent wooden lodges constructed on the “chalet land” at Abbotsley or, in the case of the twelfth defendant (Mr Warren – is now sadly dead) and the thirteenth defendant, Mr Brindley, owners of properties situated on land close to the Manor House Ms Saunders lives in. Mr Warren owned Horseman’s Cottage and Mr Brindley owns Stockman’s Cottage. Abbotsley was formerly known as Abbotsley Golf and Squash Club Limited. Mr Brindley’s defence to the allegations against him are being dealt with in a separate trial.

The second claim is brought by Abbotsley and Ms Saunders against Pheasantland for possession of the “chalet land” as Ms Saunders alleges the lease is forfeit due to breaches of the lease by Pheasantland. Ms Saunders, on behalf of herself and Abbotsley, was unsuccessful in her attempts to obtain an “early determination” of the second, forfeiture claim before the District Judge and was unsuccessful on her appeal.

This judgment is more than six times the length of a judgment that I would normally expect to be giving in any factually or legally complex matter. The fact that the judgment in this case is so long was not planned and I would much prefer it were shorter. It certainly fails in brevity or conciseness. However, this litigation has unfortunately generated an extraordinary amount of work for the parties, the instructed lawyers and the court. There are numerous points that need to be dealt with and explored thoroughly. The case advanced on behalf of Abbotsley and Ms Saunders has changed during the course of the trial and new and different arguments have been raised, some of which require answers. I will not be dealing with the entirely new arguments, set out in detail for the first time in Counsel’s closing submissions, that the answer to Ms Saunders’ water claim lies in legislation and regulations that were in force in the 1990s. I do not accept that those arguments would in fact succeed, but it would be wrong in principal for me to give a ruling on the legal submissions where there has been no case raised in the pleadings that the so-called water issues are answered by legislation and regulation. These matters have not been explored in trial. It would be entirely unfair, not only to the first defendant, who has the benefit of legal representation, but to all the defendants who do not have representation.

In addition to the difficulties caused by the claimants raising new and different arguments to those which have been pleaded, the evidence has been highly detailed and thoroughly explored on both sides with respect to 100s of allegations made by Ms Saunders. I am extremely grateful to Counsel for the claimants and the first defendant who have worked extraordinarily hard in order to meet the various challenges that have arisen in this case. I am also grateful to the individual defendants for the way that they have dealt with the allegations made against them without the benefit of representation.

While there are two claimants, the second claimant is the sole director and shareholder of the first. Ms Saunders acts as a litigant in person on her own behalf and as the sole director of Abbotsley. She has instructed leading and junior counsel, who have dealt with the pleadings and various applications. Despite encouragement that it would be better if she were to do so, Ms Saunders was determined not to instruct solicitors and deal with the solicitors’ work herself, including disclosure, as she had for a short while practiced as a non-litigation solicitor. She did instruct a paralegal to take a note during the trial and I am grateful to both the claimants and the first defendant for providing me with their respective notes of the evidence.

The first defendant, Pheasantland, is the intermediate landlord, and has the benefit of both solicitors and counsel. Of the other fifteen defendants, the thirteen in this trial are unrepresented. Those thirteen are all intelligent and sensible individuals and have conducted themselves entirely properly throughout the trial. They have not been the cause of the overrunning of the case and the drain on resource. Of course, as they are not trained lawyers, there are legal points that they are not familiar with and it has been necessary to work through those points without much assistance from them, although I have been grateful where that has been provided by counsel for the first defendant, Mr Bottomley, where there has not been a danger of conflict, and the solicitor for the thirteenth defendant, Mr Hafiaz.

The evidence of the individual defendants, the directors of the first defendant, and the other individuals who gave evidence on behalf of Pheasantland, has established how deeply and adversely they have been affected by the behaviour of Ms Saunders over a number of years, and I have decided it is very important that their evidence is recorded in detail in the judgment. It is an important record of what has actually happened so that it cannot be misrepresented in the future, but it has had a major impact on the length of this judgment. Over half of the entirety of this judgment is taken up with recording the oral evidence.

The other reason for dealing with matters in such painstaking detail is that this case has generated a great many applications which have required individual judgments. It has been a surprise to me that when I have dealt with those applications and given detailed judgments, I have still faced requests on behalf of Ms Saunders to give yet further reasons. I have resisted those applications, as the judgments on those various preliminary matters are already detailed, but it has made me conscious of the importance of being very detailed in this judgment in order to save the court from yet further applications.

Abbotsley owns approximately 220 acres of land at Eynesbury Hardwick, St Neots, Cambridgeshire which is registered under three title numbers at the Land Registry: title number CB1666615 which comprises the golf courses and hotel complex; CB76858 which is Eynesbury Hardwick Manor occupied by Ms Saunders; and a block of 18 acres registered under title number CB117475.

The three plots of land had originally been purchased by Ms Saunders between 1986 and 1991. She transferred the land to Abbotsley in or about 1994/1995.

Ms Saunders is the sole shareholder and director of Abbotsley. Ms Jenny Wisson is named as company secretary but, for reasons I set out in greater detail below, it is clear that she does not understand the duties and responsibilities of a company secretary and she holds that position in name only. She was placed in that role, and her previous role of managing director, because she is a close friend of Ms Saunders. Ms Saunders is the sole directing mind of Abbotsley and is unrestrained by a Board or any other officer and consequently Abbotsley has become her alter ego (in fact if not in law).

The block of 18 acres registered under title number CB117475 includes the “chalet land”, an area of approximately 6 acres, which was let by Abbotsley, initially to Luddington Investments Limited, for the purpose of the construction of the wooden lodges. The “chalet land” has a leasehold title of CB277689 and is known as Abbotsley Country Homes. The other two areas within the 18 acre site that have been in the course of these proceedings are the Jenny Wisson wood together with a car park, and the sheep field.

The Jenny Wisson wood and the legitimacy of access to that wood by members of the public was made an issue for determination in this case as Ms Saunders pleaded that it is a trespass to enter onto that woodland and has made allegations of trespass in particular against Mr Gearing, Ms Melesi, Mr Honeywill and Ms Holliman. I will deal with the Jenny Wisson wood later in this judgment, although Ms Saunders has submitted that as she now withdraws these particular allegations of trespass, she would prefer the court not to determine this issue.

The first claim under claim number J90PE914 is referred to as the “water and trespass claim” and is brought by both claimants against Pheasantland and fifteen additional individual defendants who (save for the deceased twelfth defendant, Mr Warren, and the thirteenth defendant, Mr Brindley) all own and/or occupy the substantial three-bedroomed wooden lodges on “Abbotsley Country Homes”.

The second claim, under claim number K00LU633, which is known as the “possession claim” is only brought against Pheasantland. That claim seeks possession of Abbotsley Country Homes, the land upon which the lodges have been constructed in accordance with planning permission being originally let to Pheasantland’s predecessors in title, Luddington Investments Limited (“Luddington”) by a lease dated 17 July 2023.

A notice pursuant to the provisions of section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“the section 146 notice”), dated 3 January 2023 and signed by Ms Saunders, was served on Pheasantland, alleging (in summary) that the lodges numbered 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 were being occupied as permanent accommodation; that lodge 4 was being occupied for commercial purposes; that lodges 6, 9, 16 and 20 had a large shed or sheds on their plot; and that 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17 had failed to enter into a deed of covenant with the landlord. Additionally, the section 146 notice contained allegations that Pheasantland had brought large machinery on the land to drill for a borehole; that the insurance policy failed to note the interest of Abbotsley; that nuisance, damage and disturbance had been caused by virtue of “trespassing on the water supply” of Abbotsley, and trespassing on the land by individuals. The section 146 notice gave a month’s notice for the remedying of the breaches and required compensation.

The claim for possession of the “chalet land” was issued on 22 May 2023. Abbotsley brought an application against Pheasantland to deal with possession of the “chalet land” by reason of forfeiture of the Lease on a summary basis. Additionally, Abbotsley sought an early determination of its claim for possession either by way of summary judgment pursuant to the provisions of CPR 24.3 or by an order to strike out the defence pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.4(2)(a). Judgment was given by the District Judge on 19 June 2024 and expanded upon, at the request of Abbotsley, on 18 July 2024. The appeal was heard by me on 21 February 2025 and refused, for the reasons given in detail in the judgment, on 17 March 2025.

In total, 20 lodges were constructed on the “chalet land” which, together with the grassland surrounding the lodges, comprise Abbotsley Country Homes. In seeking possession by way of forfeiture of the lease, the owners and occupiers of those wooden lodges plainly have the potential of being directly affected and there were a number of lodge owners who, in addition to those who had been made party to the water and trespass claim, gave evidence in this trial with respect to their occupation and use of the lodges.

There can be no dispute but that Ms Saunders is the controlling mind of Abbotsley. Abbotsley does have a Company Secretary, Jenny Wisson, but it was clear from her evidence that she was not dealing with legal and regulatory matters for Abbotsley; she was not involved in the bringing of proceedings, which she said was being dealt with by Ms Saunders; and she was not told to retain documents herself for the purpose of the litigation.

It was clear that Ms Wisson was the Company Secretary in name only and that she did not understand the role, duties and obligations of a Company Secretary. She had previously been given the title of Managing Director of Abbotsley, when she had been the ladies captain of Abbotsley Golf Club, but she was entirely frank in her evidence that her role was limited to looking after the customers and grow the business. She did not have any strategic input.

Consequently, while there are two claimants there is only one protagonist. It is Ms Saunders’ firmly held views and beliefs which have directed this litigation throughout. It is her arguments that have been put fully to the court by leading counsel, who she has instructed by way of direct access, supported by junior counsel. Ms Saunders’ decision to carry out the work of the solicitor herself has caused considerable difficulties and, at the end of the trial and consideration of all the evidence, I have concluded that she did not instruct solicitors as she wished to keep control of the litigation as much as she could.

The first defendant, Pheasantland, is the current tenant of the Lease granted by Abbotsley of the “chalet land” to Luddington on 13 July 2003. Pheasantland is therefore the intermediate landlord between Abbotsley and the individual leasehold owners of the substantial three-bedroomed log cabins constructed on the “chalet land”. The directors of Pheasantland are themselves owners of individual log cabins on the “chalet land” and, other than defendants twelve and thirteen, the other 15 defendants are all owners and/or occupiers of the log cabins.

As one of the major issues in the dispute is the allegation that the residents of the log cabins on the “chalet land” have been trespassing upon the Abbotsley water supply, and another major issue is the possession claim, it was sensibly suggested by Mr Hafiaz, acting on behalf of Mr Brindley, that his case be heard separately to the remainder of the defendants. Unfortunately, due to the excessive time that the case has taken to hear, the trial for Mr Brindley had to be adjourned.

Sadly, during the course of these proceedings, Mr Warren committed suicide. Ms Saunders has been vociferous in repeating her position that she is not to be associated with Mr Warren killing himself. It is not for this court to make any comment about the cause or causes of him deciding to end his life, that has been dealt with by the coroner. The Record of Inquest, which took place on 18 December 2024 (having initially been opened on 27 April 2023) before Caroline Jones, the Area Coroner, sets out that “Neil Warren had been engaged in a long-running legal dispute which had a significant impact on his mental wellbeing. In April 2023, following the imposition of an injunction and with a further court case pending, Neil experienced thoughts of suicide …In notes that were discovered after his death, Neil had outlined the significant toll that the ongoing litigation had on his mental state and it is probable that his worries over the forthcoming court case contributed more than minimally to his actions.”

Mr Warren’s son attended on 21 July 2025, the final day of oral submissions and the twentieth day of trial. Despite objection from counsel acting on behalf of Ms Saunders to him saying anything, I allowed him to speak. I made it clear that I was not recording what he said as part of the evidence in the trial. It was, in my judgment, for the well-being of Mr Warren’s son that he could say something publicly on behalf of his deceased father but it is not something that informs my opinion of Ms Saunders. I have had the benefit of seeing Ms Saunders and her behaviour, both during the 20 days of the hearing, at the various interlocutory hearings before me – sometimes with representation and sometimes without – and in her communications with the court, including subsequent to the hearing. I also have heard all the evidence from Ms Saunders herself and of the many witnesses, including the defendants, and the 1000s of pages of documentation. I do not, and do not need to, take into account what was said by Mr Warren’s son, to be able to reach my views.

In furtherance of the overriding objective, pursuant to the provisions of CPR rule 1, I acceded to the application by Pheasantland to consolidate the trespass/harassment and the possession claims together. I did not require the pleadings to be redrafted, but consolidating the proceedings had the advantage that the parties and witnesses did not have to repeat their evidence in two trials where the interested individuals, the issues, and the disputes considerably overlapped. It would have been unwieldy and even more time consuming for those issues to have been dealt with in two separate trials. It would also have significantly increased costs which are already entirely disproportionate to the issues involved in these disputes. That is particularly concerning where the claimants appear to have both an ability and desire to spend large sums of money in litigation, whereas the defendants – both the individuals and also Pheasantland, a limited company formed by some of the leasehold owners of the individual log cabins – have very constrained resources for this litigation.

Unfortunately, the consolidated trial took 20 days (five more than the 15 days that had been listed) including 19 days of evidence, and then a day of oral submissions supplementing the detailed written submissions that had been provided in accordance with the directions of the court.

It will be clear from this judgment (and the various other judgments I have had to give during this matter) how many difficulties there have been in this litigation. I do not believe, however, that anyone can properly understand just how difficult this trial has been unless they have been directly involved. Counsel for the first defendant accurately summed up the situation as follows:

“This case has been extraordinarily expensive in terms of court resources. Important cases due to be heard by this Court have had to be adjourned, holidays have been cancelled, and the increased sitting hours have taken a considerable physical and mental toll on court staff, litigants and lawyers.”

At the core of the consolidated claims are five principle issues for determination:

In addition, at the end of the trial, Pheasantland applied to strike out the claim contending that the behaviour of Ms Saunders on behalf of herself and the first claimant, Abbotsley, has been such that it is simply not possible for there to be a fair trial and the claim therefore ought to be struck out. I have explained to the parties that while I will deal with that application, regardless of the outcome it will not prevent me from determining all the substantive issues raised in the case before me. It is essential that there is resolution of those issues regardless of my determination on the strike out application. I have given a separate judgment with respect to the strike out application, which I will hand down together with this judgment on the substantive matter.

Further to the core issues, it is essential that this judgment records in detail the evidence of the individual defendants who have been faced with this litigation and the other witnesses who have attended court. The occupants and owners of the lodges on Abbotsley Country Homes have been pulled into the orbit of this litigation, without any ability to extricate themselves and with many having no input into how this dispute developed.

One of the, many, unusual features of this litigation is that while, from my observations, Ms Saunders will take a very trenchant view on something and then prosecute her theory with a vigour which does not allow for any suggestion that she is wrong, she will then sometimes suddenly drop an argument or allegation and then, sometimes, change tack without regard to the rules of litigation or pleading. In the meantime, the defendants have to defend themselves with regard to allegations or arguments made against them and then, without any apology or acknowledgment of the suffering caused, sometimes find that the allegation made is simply dropped. This has happened to a number of the defendants with respect to allegations of trespass.

One particular area in which she has attempted to adopt this course of “changing tack” is with respect to the allegations that individual defendants have been trespassing on the Jenny Wisson wood. I deal with this issue, which has been brought before the court for determination, in detail below. In summary Ms Saunders’ allegation has been that the wood is not open to the public and that as she had not given individuals permission to go onto the woodland, they are trespassing. The owners and occupiers of the lodges who have been accused of trespass do not agree and contend that the wood is open to the public, and have set that out in their respective defences. Huntingdonshire District Council, the local planning authority, have also indicated that they consider the wood to be open to the public and subject to a section 106 agreement that Ms Saunders entered into and relied upon when entering into the lease of the “chalet land” in 2003. It seems that Ms Saunders is concerned that her contentions with respect to the Jenny Wisson wood have not withstood the scrutiny of the court and so, in closing submissions, it is said that she no longer wishes to continue with the allegations of trespass against individuals. However, despite the evidence provided to the court, she does not concede that she is wrong about the Jenny Wisson wood and wishes to argue the point on a future occasion saying she will take the matter up with the local authority, and keep the defendants informed. Of course, she cannot deal with matters in that way. I am surprised that she has endeavoured to do so through counsel. She has raised the matter of the Jenny Wisson wood not being open to the public before the court, and it has been defended by those against whom she has made an allegation of trespass, who have positively raised the case that the Jenny Wisson wood is open to the public as a consequence of the section 106 agreement, entered into as a deed with Huntingdonshire DC by Ms Saunders. Ms Saunders’ argument that the planning permission and the section 106 agreement she relied upon when entering into the lease in 2003, was not in fact in force when she entered into that lease, is properly before the court and will be determined. Unless she discontinues, she cannot withdraw a point because she believes she will not succeed on it in the hope that she can continue the argument out of court or at some future time in court. The court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant a declaration and it is important that this expensive litigation deals with the issues raised before it. I will deal with the Jenny Wisson wood later in this judgment.

There has only been lay evidence in this trial and no expert evidence. It has been extensive. It has been made more difficult and time consuming by the fact that while the first and second claimants were represented by leading and junior counsel, and counsel was acting on behalf of the first defendant, the other defendants had no representation and there were times when, because no-one else was there to ask them, I had to ask them about how life has been at Abbotsley Country Homes.

The evidence for the claimants has been given by the second claimant, Ms Saunders, on her own behalf and on behalf of Abbotsley. In addition, she relied upon evidence given by Mr Robert Verdier, the owner and occupier of lodge 10 at Abbotsley Country Homes; Mr Simon Jefferies, who lives on Abbotsley land in a static caravan, and his son, Mr Joe Jefferies, who has recently completed his schooling; Mr Bradbury, an outside contractor; and two process servers.

The first defendants gave evidence through their directors, Mr Alan Walker, Ms Jill Beresford-Ambridge, and Mr Blackall. Mr Blackall also gave evidence on his own behalf, as a named defendant. The other witnesses for the first defendant were owners and occupiers of the lodges at Abbotsley Country Homes, some of whom were also named defendants. Some of the individual, unrepresented, defendants were only giving evidence on their own behalf. There was, understandably, an overlapping of evidence between the first defendant and the individual defendants.

The oral evidence has been considerable. While it has been appropriate to deal with much of Ms Saunders evidence in the course of dealing with the issues, I have recorded much of the other evidence in a dedicated section of the judgment in order that there can be no future concerns about what evidence was given to the court and what was understood.

Vivien Inez Saunders is the second claimant and the sole director and shareholder of the first claimant, Abbotsley. She is the controlling mind of Abbotsley and the driving force behind this litigation. She originally purchased between 1986 and 1991 the land which was transferred to Abbotsley in 1994 to 1995. In total the land comprises approximately 220 acres of which 18 acres includes the “chalet land”, which comprises approximately 6 acres and is the subject of this dispute. The remainder of the 18 acres is the Jenny Wisson wood and the sheep field. The majority of the land outside those 18 acres was developed into two 18-hole golf courses, a 9-hole golf course, a driving range, squash course and fitness centre and a 42 bedroom hotel. Ms Saunders was a very successful golfer in her time and she was awarded an OBE for services to women’s golf in 1998. She is also financially successful. She says she does not know how much her shareholding in Abbotsley is worth but it is known locally that this area between Cambourne and St Neots is being extensively developed with housing as the road and rail network is being significantly upgraded in furtherance of the Oxford/Cambridge corridor to encourage economic growth. Ms Saunders herself has entered into an arrangement for the sale of some of her land which has become very valuable for development.

Ms Saunders provided nine witness statements in this litigation between 1 December 2022 and 15 April 2025, prior to the trial commencing. She confirmed the truth of those nine witness statements. I have now received a further four witness statements from Ms Saunders, two of which (witness statements twelve and thirteen) were provided after evidence had closed and final oral submissions had been made. Witness statement twelve partially dealt with an order of the court to provide further disclosure which had not been dealt with by Ms Saunders in accordance with the case management directions and the Civil Procedure Rules. Ms Saunders used that twelfth witness statement to endeavour to raise new issues. The thirteenth witness statement was provided, after a court order made on 18 August 2025 not to continue to attempt to adduce new evidence, in another attempt to raise new matters. I made it clear that the court would not be accepting new evidence. To do so would be unfair as it had not been put to any of the defendants and they were not in a position to consider what was being alleged and, if appropriate, give evidence in court with respect to new allegations. Cross examination of Ms Saunders on her allegations of trespass upon the Abbotsley water supply; her allegations of trespass, nuisance and harassment against individual defendants; and her claim for forfeiture of the lease to Pheasantland took a number of days and is dealt with in the context of the allegations made against the defendants.

In light of the volume of Ms Saunders’ evidence, it is simply not possible to record everything that she has said (in writing and orally) in this section of the judgment. Her witness statements are of course available in writing and I have considered that evidence, which she confirmed as being true, and her oral evidence with great care.

The statement dated 1 December 2022 was in support of an injunction against the defendants. The first allegation she makes is that fourteen greens of the Abbottsley Course were vandalised causing extensive damage. Her later evidence was that a failure of the contractors instructed by the insurers meant that the damage to the golf course was made worse so that all employees were made redundant, the site was abandoned and the site was not operated as a business from September 2018. She states that she believes that “at least one of the current defendants” was responsible for the vandalism. That was plainly an extremely serious allegation of criminal behaviour. There is no evidence for her belief, and it seems to be based solely on the allegation that, the now deceased, Mr Warren had once said to her after the vandalism that someone did not like her. There could not be a more tenuous basis for making the allegation she did and I expressly find that it is not made out. That serious allegation did, however, form part of the case for seeking the injunction against the defendants and the damages claimed, and was added to by other serious allegations of harassment and nuisance against the defendants. She has alleged that the defendants were “using the ‘caravan site’ and/or the footpaths as their launchpad for trespass, nuisance, harassment and violent, threatening behaviour” and that behaviour had not only been against her but also against Jenny Wisson, Simon Jefferies, Joe Jefferies, and Robert Verdier. The other claims brought by Ms Saunders are that Pheasantland and the owners and occupiers of the log cabins on the “chalet land” were trespassing upon the Abbotsley water supply. I deal with all those allegations, some of which Ms Saunders has now decided to withdraw, when dealing with all the trespass claims which have been set out in the closing submissions for the claimants.

Ms Saunders also seeks forfeiture of the lease to Pheasantland based upon alleged breaches of the terms of that lease. Again, I deal with those allegations in the section of the judgment dealing with forfeiture of the Lease and the 14 page schedule of allegations contained in the closing submissions for the claimants.

Ms Saunders qualified as a solicitor in 1981 and worked for approximately 5 years variously as a tax lawyer, a conveyancer and a matrimonial lawyer and said that she recognised the need to preserve documents as soon as litigation commences and the need to carry out disclosure of all relevant documents. She also said that she was acutely aware of the need to be truthful and the importance of correcting if recollections were wrong or mistaken. She told the court that she understood the obligations of disclosure but also said that it would make no difference if a solicitor were instructed as a solicitor could only disclose those documents revealed by their lay client. That statement was extremely concerning as it is indicates that she felt that an individual litigant may well not reveal documents. It also reveals that she had no understanding of a solicitor’s professional obligations to the court. Extraordinarily, she described the room which holds the metal filing cabinets of documents at Abbotsley as “the Fred West suite”. When asked why she had said that, she said that she thought it was “a bit naughty.” She said that there were all manner of documents in there but that she went through all 16 filing cabinets and that there were handwritten ledger accounts for 1990/1991. Her rhetorical question was “how far does one go?”, not a question to be expected from someone who knows what is required for standard disclosure. The correspondence in the bundle from the solicitors acting on behalf of Pheasantland reveals that there were gaps in the disclosure provided by Ms Saunders to which her response in early 2025 was “whoops”. It is very difficult to know, when the gaps are shown, exactly what is missing and that is the basis upon which the application to strike out was made, which I I deal with in the separate judgment. For example, Ms Saunders said in her evidence that she is personally not surprised that she has correspondence with respect to sewerage and electricity, but nothing about the supply of water and she says that she does not know why there is a lack of contemporaneous correspondence about water. I do not share her lack of surprise, it is plainly very unusual that there should be such limited documentation relating to the water and Ms Saunders did not explain to the court why she thought it was nothing unusual.

Ms Saunders was cross examined with respect to the various documents relating to the provision of water. Senior counsel for Ms Saunders objected to the detail of that cross examination on the basis that, ultimately, it was a decision for the court to construe the documents and that the opinion of one or other party with respect to the meaning of the documents was of no assistance. I appreciated her concession with respect to that, which was made in an attempt to ensure good use of court time and it is, of course, correct that the construction of the documents is a matter for the court. However, given the nature of this litigation it was important for the court to know what was understood by Ms Saunders at the time and it was also important to understand her level of engagement with what was happening “on the ground”. Had she not been cross-examined then I am sure the submission would have been made that certain points could not be taken by the defendants.

Ms Saunders called her two process servers, Ian Skingsley and Edward Kobiela of Bryan Lecoche Limited, to give evidence to support her claim that the lodge owners are in occupation of the lodges at times when they should not be.

Their evidence was naturally very limited. Mr Kobiela stated that he entered Abbotsley Country Homes on 11 February 2023 for the purpose of identifying which lodges he considered were in occupation at that time. He was not invited by the lodge owners to be on the land and he was not there for the delivery of any documentation. Mr Skingsley stated that he entered Abbotsley Country Homes on 23 February 2023, again for the purpose of identifying which lodges he considered were in occupation at that time. Neither had a legitimate right to be on the land as they were not operating pursuant to the implied licence to enter private land for the purpose of the delivery of something. They were trespassing on the instructions of Ms Saunders, given to the company who employs them. They may not have been personally aware of that trespass, but Ms Saunders would have known that is what she was asking them to do.

Their combined evidence was that on 7 February 2023 at 7am, there was a car parked on the drive of lodge 1 (Mr and Mrs McDermott), lodge 4 (Mr Gearing), Lodge 6 (Ms Beresford- Ambridge), Lodge 8 (Mr Beatty), two cars on Lodge 15 (Ms Berwick); Lodge 19 (Ms Seiler), and Lodge 22 (Colm and Ms Holliman); and that on 23 February 2023 at 7am, there was a car parked on lodge 2 (Mr Brennan), lodge 4 (Mr Gearing), lodge 6 (Ms Beresford-Ambridge), lodge 8 (Mr and Mrs Honeywill), lodge 15 (Mrs Berwick), lodge 19 (Ms Seiler) and lodge 22 (Colm and Ms Holliman).

It appears, therefore, that the height of the evidence provided by the process servers, who had entered onto Abbotsley Country Homes without the consent of the lodge owners or occupiers or Pheasantland, is that there was a car parked on the driveway of lodge 1 on 7 February 2023 at 7am, at lodge 2 on 23 February at 7am, at lodge 4 on 7 and 23 February 2023 at 7am, at lodge 6 on 7 and 23 February 2023, at lodge 8 on 7 and 23 February 2023 at 7am, two cars at lodge 15 at 7am on both 7 and 23 Feburary 2022, and lodge 22 at 7am on 23 February 2023. Evidence of a car parked on a driveway is no evidence of occupation and therefore this evidence does not assist me at all. The fact that one of the cars parked on the driveway of lodge 15 was neither Ms Berwick’s car nor a car she knew anything about is clear support for my conclusion that nothing can be gleaned from cars being on driveways.

The only additional evidence provided by the process servers was that lodge 15 had three black dogs on 7 February 2023 and on 23 February 2023 dogs were heard barking and a woman was sighted in the property. With respect to lodge 22, a male (possibly Colm) “voiced his dissatisfaction” that this stranger, a process server, was outside his property and he said that he would call the police.

All that evidence establishes is that on that particular day at that particular time the lodge had someone in it. Neither lodge 15 nor lodge 22 are not prohibited from being occupied in February, and consequently the fact that someone was seen in the property on those isolated occasions does not give any support to the allegations that the properties were being occupied contrary to the terms of the underleases. Most of the leases only prohibit occupation to 11 months and do not prohibit occupation in February. In any event, evidence that there was a car on the drive does not establish, or even support, occupation.

Jennifer Mary Wisson, after whom the Jenny Wisson wood was named, had been the lady captain of the Golf Club at Abbotsley in 1986. As is set out above, Ms Saunders had purchased the three tranches of land which comprises the entire 220 acres of land, now in the ownership of the first claimant, between 1986 and 1991. Ms Wisson was made the Managing Director of Abbotsley. By 2002 she was no longer the Managing Director but the Company Secretary. She described her role to be to grow the business and look after the customers. Prior to her involvement with Ms Saunders and Abbotsley she had been a teacher in a local school. She said that the business had been very successful and that she had really enjoyed her work.

Sadly, Ms Wisson’s mother fell ill with dementia in or about 2019 and she focussed herself on looking after her mother, who died in July 2022. Ms Wisson said that she was aware that there was a dispute between Ms Saunders and the lodge owners about the water supply but she had not been involved with it at all and she had not been aware of the water being turned off before it happened, she also had no awareness of the invoicing for water although it is clear that the water being provided to the lodges was being metred and charged. In an email dated 16 March 2011, Mark Chatfield from PI Estates Limited, wrote to d-@abbotsley.com setting out the following:

“Hi Denise

Further to our telephone conversation earlier today.

I can confirm that the water meter reading was taken on 15 September the day PIE acquired the site & it was 4632cu.m

As we mentioned we had hoped that we could work to half yearly readings and invoice for water usage, say June & December. Perhaps you could speak to Vivien & let me know how she feels about it”

Ms Wisson said that she was not there in 2011 and that, although she remained Company Secretary for Abbotsley, she was not involved in what was going on. Denise Hastings (of the d-@abbotsley email address) was a golf teaching pro who helped out with the business. It is clear from this letter dated 16 March 2011,that the water was being provided to the lodges and that it was being metered and charged for by Abbotsley, although Ms Wisson did not know about the money that was coming in and out of Abbotsley.

There is a striking lack of documentation about water in this case, despite it being a central issue in the litigation and I am concerned about that lack of documentation. Ms Wisson believes that the emails to Abbotsley would be held on the hard drive. Ms Wisson, despite being the Company Secretary, does not appear to have had any involvement in the running of Abbotsley. She was not dealing with legal and regulatory matters, she was not involved in the bringing of proceedings, which she said was being dealt with by Ms Saunders, and she was not told to retain documents herself for the purpose of that litigation.

Ms Wisson did say that it was she was traumatised when she was confronted by Mr Lance Honeywill who she says called her a “fucking cunt”. Although she said that he then stepped back from her car, this type of language cannot be condoned regardless of the state Mr Honeywill was in given the shutting off of the water to his lodge.

Robert Verdier owns and lives at lodge 10 Abbotsley Lodge Homes, the lodge having originally been purchased by his partner Jacqueline Ann Rasen in January 2010. She sadly died on 11 February 2020. She had been ill and had become a patient of the Court of Protection. Subsequently the legal ownership of lodge 10 passed to Mr Verdier. In his first statement, dated 27 July 2023, Mr Verdier refers to both 10 Abbotsley Country Homes and an address at 1 Brook Street, St Neots as his address. He said that since the purchase of the lodge in January 2010 he has slept “on occasion” in lodge 10. Mr Verdier did provide a second statement dated 6 March 2025, which he was asked to confirm as being part of his evidence in chief. I have very real concerns about the way in which that statement was taken and, as a result of those concerns, I cannot place any reliance upon that second statement. He himself said that he had signed it “blind”.

Mr Verdier was involved in the purchase of the lease of the “chalet land” in late 2017, when the lease was put up for auction by PI Estates. While Mr Verdier was successful in the purchase in the auction, other owners of the underleases, including Mr Pacey and Mr Walker, needed to put money into the purchase which resulted in Pheasantland being formed with Mr Walker, Ms Beresford-Ambridge and Mr Blackall as the three directors of Pheasantland. Mr Verdier said that he had two aims in purchasing the lease when PI Estates placed it into auction: first to make sure that it did not fall into the hands of an investment company which might have resulted in the imposition of high service and management charges, adverse to the interests of the leasehold owners of the lodges, and secondly to ensure that the terms of the underleases were upheld.

Mr Verdier has previously had action taken against him by Pheasantland because he had a mobile home parked next to the lodge, which was connected with the ill-health of his now deceased partner. Mr Verdier appears to continue to breach the terms of his underlease by the way he uses his lodge and it may be that Mr Verdier is deliberately breaching the terms of his lease in order to create as much annoyance and nuisance as is possible. It is notable how Ms Saunders makes no complaint about those obvious breaches. There are photographs of lodge 10 contained in the bundle which show clearly the terrace around the lodge is packed full of various bicycles and parts of bicycles covered by tarpaulin. I saw this on my site visit. Other lodge owners believe that Mr Verdier is using his lodge for the purpose of selling bicycles. When asked about the number of bikes he stores on his wooden terrace he acknowledged that “I seem to collect a lot of bikes, I test ride bikes.” The outside of lodge 10 does not show someone with a collection of new bikes that were being test ridden, as that statement might suggest. What fills the terrace are older bicycles and parts of bicycles. Either he is hoarding old bicycles and parts of bicyles or he has those bikes for the purpose of selling on to others. I cannot make a decision on that point as I do not have any positive evidence that he does run a business from lodge 10, and it not necessary for the purpose of the determinations I need to make. There is an apparently strong argument that he is not acting in accordance with the terms of paragraph 12 of the first schedule to the underlease of lodge 10 in that he is storing items on the terrace. His use of the terrace could also be a nuisance to other lodge owners, contrary to paragraph 2 of the first schedule to the underlease.

On 5 January 2025, Mr Verdier was written to by Pheasantland’s managing agents, HML, setting out “We have recently brought to your attention the state of the gardens at your Lodge, we now feel that we have to bring your attention the state of the grounds surrounding it, which have become increasingly neglected and cluttered”. I am not asked to make any decision with respect to whether Mr Verdier is in breach of his underlease, that will be determined if HML do take action on behalf of Pheasantland. What is of significance for the purpose of this case is despite these apparent breaches, Ms Saunders has made no complaint about Mr Verdier and the manner in which he occupies lodge 10 in the section 146 notice that she served. Ms Saunders said that she believes Mr Verdier sleeps at lodge 10 and that he is at Lodge 10 permanently but that “it is different for Robert because the other property [he owns] is in the same town.” It is not clear to me why that makes Ms Saunders believe that Mr Verdier’s position different. I am satisfied that Mr Verdier lives at 10 Abbotsley Country Homes full time and it is his principal permanent home. I am also satisfied that Ms Saunders knows that.

The stark inconsistency in the way Ms Saunders behaves towards the other lodge owners/occupiers is extraordinary and appears to be linked entirely to the fact that Mr Verdier has aligned himself with Ms Saunders and supports her behaviour. Her behaviour towards Mr Verdier as compared to her behaviour towards the other owners and occupiers of the lodges undermines her argument that the forfeiture claim is brought for legitimate purposes.

Mr Verdier repeated in his evidence that he has no material interest in lodge 10 despite the fact that the office copy entries for lodge 10, which is registered under title number CB351611, showing his interest in the property. Mr Verdier was initially reluctant to acknowledge that it was important to abide by the terms of the underlease, but then acknowledged that it was important. He accepted that, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of the first schedule, he could not occupy the lodge for more than 11 months in any year and that his lodge was to be vacant during February. He said that Pheasantland applied the provision and so he moved out in February.

With respect to the provision of water to his lodge from the time it was purchased in 2010, he said that he knew he was getting water but did not know from where and did not know that during that time Norwegian Log was paying water bills to American Golf, who were then running the golf course prior to surrendering the lease back to Abbotsley. He had no knowledge of the plan showing where the water was being supplied from, or the invoices that were being paid; he had no knowledge of the terms of the head lease, the agreement for the lease, the schedule of infrastructure works or the certificate for practical completion, or the fourth deed of variation. There is no reason why he should have known about the details of the arrangements for the supply of water. It was plain that the evidence Mr Verdier was providing with respect to his views about the water supply, such as saying “we thought we had a supply but we had been ‘tapping into’ Abbotsley” were parroted from what he had been told by Ms Saunders. That is clear from his paragraph where he says “I began to look into the water situation some more and discussed it with Simon Jefferies and then with Vivien. She explained to me that the ultimate lease did not specify that Abbotsley had to supply us with water and showed me how she had repeatedly asked Pheasantland’s director, Alan Walker to get solicitors involved to agree the route of new pipework but he refused.” This is a straight repetition of Ms Saunder’s case and is not an independent account of what had happened.

Mr Verdier was asked about the comment he had included in his first witness statement about why Abbotsley could not be bound to supply for water for 125 years, “Why? How?” and referred to the terms of the lease – to which he honestly responded “its all mumbo jumbo to me”. Of course, Mr Verdier’s view of what the lease means is as irrelevant to the determination of its proper construction, as is the view of Ms Saunders or Mr Walker, or anyone else. Mr Verdier’s evidence was, in my judgment, merely a repetition of what he was told by Ms Saunders and, despite being asked about the same, he presented that he had a remarkable lack of interest about when the water to lodge 10 was cut off.

In addition to not involving Mr Verdier in proceedings, there is no evidence that Ms Saunders uses the same aggressive and cruel language against Mr Verdier that she has used against the other lodge owners, although he did give unchallenged evidence that before he became friendlier with Ms Saunders she used to drive past him in her car and, for no apparent reason, stick both her fingers up at him. There seems no logical explanation for that behaviour, but it does align with the way in which Ms Saunders seems to interact socially.

Mr Verdier provided a second witness statement dated 6 March 2025, approximately 6 weeks before the trial commenced. In the course of Mr Verdier being cross examined, when he was explaining to the court that he did not understand what was in the second statement and he had signed it “blind”, Ms Saunders suddenly and surprisingly became extremely distressed, loudly sobbing. As a consequence, I had to stop Mr Verdier’s evidence and pause the hearing. I gave leading counsel the opportunity to discuss matters with Ms Saunders in order to allow her to calm down. I was informed that Ms Saunders was distressed because she believed that Mr Verdier was suffering from dementia and that she was finding it difficult witnessing him struggling to recall matters. That was a surprising averment, given that no mention had been made of this potential difficulty before Mr Verdier was called on behalf of Ms Saunders in order to support the claims brough by Ms Saunders and Abbotsley. I understand that this had not been mentioned by Ms Saunders at any time beforehand. If Mr Verdier is suffering from dementia, then that was an important matter that the court ought to have been made aware. Not only does it create doubt about the reliability of his evidence in the sense of whether he had an accurate memory of events, but also with respect to his potential susceptibility to accepting false information as true – particularly if he was being presented with information from a trusted person. I can properly take judicial notice of the fact that dementia affects the brain's frontal lobes, which are responsible for decision-making and critical thinking, and that impairment can reduce the ability to question or evaluate the validity of suggestions. While I have no medical evidence before me to establish the truth of Mr Verdier’s state of health, Ms Saunders is alleging it herself and it undermines the evidence of one of her key witnesses.

With respect to the additional oral evidence given at the beginning of his evidence in chief, Mr Verdier said that he had received four phone calls overnight immediately before he was giving his evidence. He told the court that numbers had been withheld and that he could hear on one call a “cackling, witchy woman” and that on another call it was said “we’re coming to get you” and he heard a “youngish man” but he did not recognise anyone. The words “we’re coming to get you” are precisely the same words that Mr Bradbury used when he alleged, in my judgment falsely, that there was an incident overnight when the water was cut off on 16 July 2022. Those allegations of overnight telephone calls to Mr Verdier seemed bizarre and inherently unbelievable. It is not until considering them again, in light of the later provided information that he is suffering from the onset of dementia, that I can put these allegations in context. It is possible that it was suggested to him by another that the calls had happened, or it was delusional on his part. The descriptions do not accurately fit the defendants and my observations of the defendants do not fit with individuals who would make such calls, if any such calls were in fact received by Mr Verdier.

With respect to the second witness statement, Mr Verdier initially said that he could not recall meeting with Mr Waritay, junior direct access counsel. He said that the statement came back as “legalease” but that “they know better than me”. He said he probably signed the second statement “blind” and he confirmed that he had not read the statement before reading it. Under cross examination by one of the unrepresented defendants he confirmed that he had not had explained to him the statement of truth and the consequence of that statement. It is entirely unsatisfactory. It may be that the statement was explained to him and that the statement of truth was also explained to him, but Mr Verdier has no knowledge or recollection of that. It transpired from both Mr Verdier and Ms Saunders’ evidence that the second statement was taken not in his own lodge but at Ms Saunders property. I do not understand why that was the case as it must have been clear that there needed to be distance between Mr Verdier and Ms Saunders in him giving that evidence, particularly where there is the clear difference in the way that Mr Verdier is being treated as compared to all the other lodge owners. Mr Verdier ought to have been seen independently away from Ms Saunders and, for reasons, I cannot understand, that was not done. Ms Saunders own evidence on this is that Mr Verdier had come to her house and that they were all in her garden room, although Mr Verdier and junior counsel were at the other end and she went off to make the tea so that she was not there for the majority of the time. She said that Mr Verdier’s statement was then sent to her and that she went through the statement with Mr Verdier and he scribbled notes on it and it was sent back to junior counsel for a further draft which was then read through by both her and Mr Verdier. The fact that Ms Saunders was involved in some way with the drafting of the statement of Mr Verdier undermines the independence of his evidence and in circumstances where Mr Verdier says he signed the statement “blind” I do not place any reliance upon Mr Verdier’s additional oral evidence in chief or on his second statement, which he now says he signed without reading it.

With respect to his first statement, it is clear to me that Mr Verdier is setting out what he has been told to say by Ms Saunders with respect to the supply of water. I do accept that Mr Verdier suffered some injury when Colm opened the door into his face, which resulted in two black eyes. I do not accept the allegations that he had a broken nose and broken ribs caused by that incident which was not, in my judgment, the act of violence that Mr Verdier alleges. He did not receive any medical assistance and I accept that Mr Verdier and Colm spent the afternoon on the decking of Ms Holliman’s lodge talking. This is an incident which has been exaggerated and mispresented in order to put Colm in a particularly bad light.

While Mr Jefferies is not formally an employee of Abbotsley Golf Club, he clearly works for Ms Saunders from time to time. Ms Saunders allows Simon Jefferies to live in his static caravan on a site on Abbotsley. She says that she likes him to be there as it provides security for her living in the Manor House, once the hotel and golf course closed down in late 2017. He gave evidence that there is no written agreement allowing him to site his static caravans on the land, but there is a “gentleman’s or lady’s agreement” and that in return he carries out general repair and maintenance work, that he carries out a level of security for Ms Saunders. Mr Jefferies said that the golf course was vandalised by “neighbours” and then was closed down. There is no evidence to support any suggestion that the defendants were involved in this vandalism and, while Ms Saunders became convinced that (the now deceased) Mr Warren was involved in some way, like so much in this case, in there is no evidence to support that allegation, beyond what has been said by Ms Saunders. I have formally dismissed it.

Mr Jefferies was asked about his understanding of the water situation and he accepted he had not read the lease and did not know anything about the financial arrangements with respect to the supply of water. It was clear to me that he had not been told that the water supplied had been invoiced and paid for. It appears that he was told by Ms Saunders that she was paying for their water. He had excavated the pipe that supplied the “chalet land” and was aware that some people on the land were elderly and vulnerable. The evidence with respect to the interference with the water supply is dealt with in the appropriate section below.

Mr Jefferies accepted that he had used a ground penetration radar machine on the golf course land in August 2021 in order to establish where any pipe might be. He said he had gone across the whole of the land and had cut the grass short in order to facilitate using the radar machine, but had not found any pipe in the location that Ms Saunders thought there was a pipe. He accepted that the firmness of his evidence about the rights and wrongs of the situation came from Ms Saunders and also because, in his view, the blue pipe was “a bodge”.

Joe Jefferies is the son of Simon Jefferies. He is now aged 18 and has recently finished his A levels. He appears from his statement to spend some of his time in a family home rented by his parents in Abbotsley Village and part of his time with his father at the two static caravans located on Abbotsley land. It is unfortunate that he has been brought into these proceedings and Ms Seiler, in particular, who had been a teacher, expressed her concern felt he should have been protected from this dispute.

Joe Jefferies took photographs of those who have properties at Abbotsley Country Homes when then came onto the golf course land to restore the water supply which had been cut off for 10 days: namely Ms Melesi, Mr Blackall, Mr Steele and Mr Gearing. Ms Seiler was there and she described how confused she was as she had come off the footpath slightly early and had walked into the work being carried out to restore the water supply to the Abbotsley Country Homes land. Joe Jefferies, then aged 15, was taking photographs of everyone with a long lensed camera. He had been asked to do this by Ms Saunders, and I suppose it might have felt quite exciting to a school boy to be involved.

The physical evidence provided by Ms Saunders with respect to Mr Gearing allegedly chasing Joe Jefferies away with a spade, simply does not show what Ms Saunders seeks to suggest it does. It is again a manipulation of the truth. Mr Gearing could not chase away a fit 15 year old boy and while Mr Gearing has a spade in his hand, he is merely holding it down by the side of his body and there is nothing to support him chasing Joe Jefferies away, with or without a spade. In my judgment, this is another deliberate attempt to mislead the court by putting forward an unfounded allegation that Mr Gearing was threatening violence when it is clear that he is angry about Ms Saunders cutting off the water supply but his anger manifests itself in his language towards her rather than in any physical behaviour. It is notable that Ms Saunders has withdrawn this allegation against Mr Gearing in leading counsel’s closing submissions.

Mrs Seiler, with her teaching experience, expressed some safeguarding concerns for Joe Jefferies becoming involved the water dispute. In my judgment, Joe Jefferies was being led by Ms Saunders with respect to what to do or say. For example, Joe Jefferies accepts that on the instructions of Ms Saunders he dug a ditch in order to prevent a trespass into Jenny Wisson wood. He did not know whether entry onto that wood was a trespass or not (I have found it was not and that Ms Saunders was interfering with the rights of the public to enter that wood). By digging the ditch Joe Jefferies created a hazard and then left it without any warnings or barriers. As such there was every potential that someone could have hurt themselves badly which would have had very serious implications for Joe Jefferies.

Joe Jefferies was also very dismissive of Mrs Seiler’s explanation of why she was on the Abbotsley land on 25 July 2025, when others were restoring the water that had been deliberately cut off by Ms Saunders on 16 July 2025. He was on the land taking photographs at the instructions of Ms Saunders. That included taking photographs of Mrs Seiler who said that she was very confused because she came onto the land by accident, having come off the footpath too early, and found herself between a digger and Joe Jefferies with a long lens taking photographs of her. It is not surprising that she was confused and I accept her account that she was on the land by mistake but that once she realised she was being photographed by Joe Jefferies, a child, she took photographs of him taking the photographs of her.

Alan Walker is a director of Pheasantland and has owned a lodge on Abbotsley Country Homes with his wife since December 2016. He said that he and his wife had been looking for a property in the St Neots area and came across the lodge which they fell in love with. He confirmed that he lives in Florida

When the “chalet land” was placed into auction in 2017 a number of the lodge owners, including Mr Walker and Mr Verdier were concerned about the site being purchased by an investment company with the danger of the site not being managed well. Mr Verdier succeeded in purchasing the “chalet land” for £325,000 in the auction, and the lodge owners then came together to form Pheasantland with shares issued on the basis of the contribution to the purchase price which was paid by Pheasantland. The lease was transferred to Pheasantland on 15 December 2017 without any objection by Abbotsley. Mr Walker, Ms Beresford-Ambridge and Mr Blackall became directors of Pheasantland and Mr Walker was elected as the chairman.

The underlease of the lodge was granted to Mr Walker and his wife by PI Estates Limited. The underleases are in near identical terms (two of the underleases require vacation during the month of February) and the lessees are to contribute to all rates, including water rates, in respect of any part of the “chalet land” other than those for which the lessee and other lessees of other plots are solely responsible. With respect to the water used by a lodge the lessee provides that “where a plot is not separately metered for the same so that the lessee is directly liable to the relevant utility company for the payment thereof pay the proportional metered costs of the supply of water”. When Mr Walker and his wife purchased the lodge, PI Estates would invoice the lodge owners for water for the specific lodge by a reference to a meter reading or, if there wasn’t a meter reading, a fair proportion and for water for the “chalet land” as a whole, it would be apportioned between all lodges. It was understood by Mr Walker that they would be charged for their share of water used based upon what PI Estates was paying to Abbotsley.

There was nothing in the documents disclosed by PI Estates on the sale of the chalet land which indicated that Abbotsley or Ms Saunders claimed that the water supply arrangements to be a trespass. Pheasantland identified that all the lodges on Abbotsley Country Homes had water meters and decided that from then on the plot owners would all be invoiced relating to actual usage for personal use and in equal proportions for the water serving the “chalet land” as a whole.

It was only after the failure of the golf courses and the hotel business in 2018 that the issues about the water supply started. In response to a sympathetic letter written by Mr Walker on behalf of Pheasantland, Ms Saunders wrote to say that there would be no changes to “water or drainage etc”. Ms Saunders then discovered that there was a maximum daily demand (MDD) charge which was being levied by Anglian Water (or Wave) on Abbotsley. That figure was calculated on the basis of the former year’s use of water and so while the use had reduced considerably because of the golf course and hotel not being in operation, the charge was still being made.

Mr Walker said that although Pheasantland believed that they had a right to a supply of water from Abbotsley, they also realised that Ms Saunders was threatening to terminate the water supply to the “chalet land” and in December 2018/January 2019 there were communications between Abbotsley and Pheasantland about the possibility of securing an alternative supply. Mr Walker said that he could tell that “the closure of her business had a huge impact” on Ms Saunders. Of course, Mr Walker did not know at that time that Ms Saunders had been making threats to former residents back in 2011, long before the closure of the business as a consequence of the damage to the golf courses. Despite Mr Walker’s laudable attempts to reach a compromise by appeasing Ms Saunders, the decision was ultimately made that it was not legitimate for Pheasantland to incur costs for a separate supply when Abbotsley had an obligation to supply water to the "chalet land”.

On 14 January 2019, Ms Saunders wrote on behalf of Abbotsley setting out where she considered the blue pipe to be located which served the “chalet land”. She set out her position at that time which was “You have the right to free passage of water through the pipes under Abbotsley’s land but we are not obliged to shove water up those pipes.” Thereafter, between 2020 and 2022, Ms Saunders started to cut off the water supply and Pheasantland requested the lodge owners and occupiers to repair the pipes when they were interfered with by Ms Saunders. It is Mr Walker’s position, in his role as a director of Pheasantland, that it was necessary to go onto the Abbotsley land for the purpose of carrying out repairs, renewing water pipe and opening up stop cocks to ensure that water was able to flow in order to supply the “chalet land” as Pheasantland is obliged under the terms of the lease to “put and keep the conduits in good and substantial repair and condition and whenever necessary to build and renew the same.” Mr Walker accepted that he was not at Abbotsley when Ms Saunders first interfered with the supply of water but he wrote a thank you letter to the lodge owners who had helped repairing the pipe in 2019, 2020 and 2022. He said that he did not himself personally tell the lodge owners to carry out work to the pipes, but he did discuss it with the other directors. He said he was grateful for the assistance of the lodge owners. They were helping themselves and Pheasantland by repairing the supply of water. The only way that Pheasantland could realistically respond to Ms Saunders interference with the supply of water was to request the owners and occupiers of the lodges to carry out that work and then thank them for that work. Mr Walker accepts that the request was not put in writing. There was a disagreement between counsel for the claimants and Mr Walker as to whether the turning back on the supply fell within the repairing obligations contained in the lease. That is an issue for the court. Mr Walker said that there was a conversation between people present on the site and that there was a permission from Pheasantland to go on to the Abbotsley land to repair and maintain the conduits which he was told about afterwards. Mr Walker said that the reading of the water meter and the payment for the water used to Abbotsley worked smoothly until 2019/2020. There was also a disagreement between counsel for the claimants and Mr Walker as to the interpretation of the lease. Again, this is a matter for the court.

Mr Walker was cross-examined about why he did not seek an expert determination with respect to the water supply or go to mediation. He said that as a businessman he is used to “sitting down” with someone in order to resolve issues. He said it did not cross his mind to obtain an expert determination or mediate as Pheasantland was being sued by Abbotsley and Ms Saunders. He said that had Ms Saunders mentioned a mediator then he would have been happy to engage with one, but that was never suggested. Mr Walker was asked about why it did not cross his mind and he responded that they had a lease that provides us with water and someone who asked the water company to cut off the water, and Pheasantland was considering how to protect themselves. He said that Pheasantland were open to many options but they did not want to bound into something they did not think they had to pay for and people were saying “why would we pay for a new water supply if we have a water supply already?”.

With respect to seeking to obtain possession of the “chalet land”, the section 146 notice dated 3 January 2023, is not the first occasion on which Ms Saunders, acting for herself and on behalf of Abbotsley, has sought to forfeit the lease. In early 2012, section 146 notices were served citing multiple alleged breaches and at about the same time, Ms Saunders was reporting alleged multiple breaches by way of complaints to the Huntingdonshire DC. This triggered Planning Contravention Notices and a lengthy investigation, which he said did not result in any action but, as Mr Walker put it, left them in no doubt that any contravention of the provisions of the underleases would result in an adverse reaction from the claimants. It was put to Mr Walker that Pheasantland was failing to strictly enforce the underleases to which his response was that there was no policing provision within the underlease and that people were not required, for example, to provide home addresses.

The three issues that Pheasantland felt that they faced with the underleases were that (i) the drafting was not always entirely clear and allowed for some ambiguity in interpretation; (ii) the obligation to ensure “quiet enjoyment” meant that it was inappropriate to take action unless it was clearly necessary to do so; (iii) the change of ownership of the lessor to Pheasantland was unsettling and they were keen to resolve issues rather than immediately seek to enforce them in a court or tribunal. I cannot suggest that any of these points are invalid and, as Ms Saunders says she recognises (although does not seem to stand by), it is important not to litigate if at all possible.

As a consequence, Pheasantland said that they would not “proactively pursue” everything that happened. This evolved itself into a policy that Pheasantland would only pursue an alleged breach if there were multiple complaints and the evidence and the interpretation of the Underlease were clear; or someone was sufficiently concerned about the alleged breach that they would put Pheasantland in funds to undertake enforcement action in accordance with the provisions of clause 6(viii) of the terms of the underleases.

Mr Walker has given a number of examples of alleged breaches, all of which involved Robert Verdier as either the complainer or complained about. For example, other lodge owners have expressed concerned that Mr Verdier occupies his lodge other than as holiday accommodation and that he occupies lodge 10 in February, which would be a clear contravention of his lease terms. Mr Verdier for his part alleges that other lodge owners occupy their lodges other than as holiday accommodation. No-one who has made these complaints has placed Pheasantland in funds for the purpose of proceedings being brought and Pheasantland have been advised that it would be extremely difficult to establish that Mr Verdier is sleeping in the lodge in February and that Pheasantland should not pursue the complaints. In the circumstances of this matter, it is in my judgment an entirely sensible course that Pheasantland has taken. Mr Verdier has also complained that someone has flower pots on their wooden decking but it is not clear that the prohibition against the only furniture to be on the decking is to be made of hardwood precludes everything other than hardwood furniture or only precludes furniture that it is not hardwood. Again, while I may have a view on what it means, it is not a sensible use of the limited Pheasantland finances to fund litigation to ascertain which construction is correct.

Mr Verdier complained that Mr Walker and his wife had a concrete pad for the purpose of the erection of a shed which was in the common ownership of the underlessees. Pheasantland asked them to remove it. They did. Mr Verdier had a mobile home at his lodge contrary to the terms of his lease. Proceedings were eventually taken in the first tier tribunal (FTT) for the mobile home to be removed. There are other examples of the steps taken by Pheasantland to ensure that breaches are rectified and I am satisfied that Pheasantland take their responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the underleases seriously.

I am satisfied that one of the ways in which Pheasantland fulfil their responsibilities is by the regular re-issuing of the Estate Manual, which they first re-wrote in October 2018, which included the edict that “Lodges must be occupied for holiday use only”. In later versions Pheasantland have added information about what is meant by “holiday occupancy” and in the welcome pack to all new owners, developed in 2021, Pheasantland have included a section on what makes a holiday home.

Mr Walker and his wife are not accused by Ms Saunders of using their lodge as anything other than as holiday accommodation and it is accepted by Abbotsley and Ms Saunders that their main home is in Florida, but as Mr Walker sets out many of things that she uses to seek to establish that others are using the lodges as permanent accommodation equally apply to them – namely that it is their only property in the UK; that they use the lodge address for some correspondence; that they are registered with doctors and a dentist at the lodge address; that they have their UK driving licences and car registered at the lodge; that there is a car parked at the lodge; that they are registered for council tax at the lodge; and that they are registered on the electoral roll at Abbotsley Country Homes.

With respect to the allegations of unlawful occupation of various lodges contained in the section 146 notice, Pheasantland wrote to all the lodges referred to (and also lodges 10 and 2) and, save for lodge 10 – Mr Verdier, received responses from each of the lodge owners that the allegations were incorrect.

In the Particulars of Claim, it was also alleged that lodge 11 was running a business. Mr Dedynski denied that a business was being run but, in any event, served a notice to quit against those tenants.

With respect to the allegation that the owners/occupiers of lodges 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 19,and 22 were not vacating in February, the only lodges that contain the “February clause” are lodges 2 and 10. Ms Saunders had, again, not made complaint about lodge 10 – Mr Verdier. Pheasantland wrote to the owners/occupiers of lodges 2 and 10. Mr Verdier did not respond, again. The owners of lodge 2 initially disputing that restriction but then recognised its existence and agreed to comply. Ms Saunders did seek a change of the requirement for a February clause to a 11 month limitation when the lodges were originally constructed on the basis that would make the lodges more attractive to sell and it may be because of Ms Saunders’ wish to avoid the February clause that it was removed from the majority of the underleases.

The allegation with respect to the sheds is that they have been erected in breach of clause 7 of the First Schedule to the Underleases, by not having the permission of the ultimate freeholder. Permission was given in 2010 on the transfer of the Lease to PI Estates Limited after the liquidation of Norwegian for lodges 4, 5, 8, 10 and 22 to all have an external shed of the same make and model – namely a Rowlinson Woodvale steel shed – in a particular location behind the lodge. Mr Walker expressed the view that PI Estates believed that a blanket permission had been given for the construction of sheds so long as they were the Rowlinson Woodvale steel shed. When Mr and Mrs Walker completed on the purchase of their lodge, 20 Abbotsley Country Homes, on 16 December 2016, they did not believe they required the shed – although they had been offered to purchase a lodge with a shed. Mr Walker said he was told by Mr Chatfield of PI Estates that if they did need a shed in the future they just had to make sure it was a Rowlinson Woodvale steel shed as that was the approved shed. In 2019 the Walkers decided they did need the additional storage space and decided to install one themselves. When they looked at planning they discovered that permission had already been obtained for a number of the lodges (7, 12, 16, 18 and 20) on 22 June 2016. No complaint was made about the sheds until the service of the section 146 notice and in 2023, Mr Walker had written to Ms Saunders on behalf of Abbotsley for confirmation that permission was not needed. Ms Saunders did not respond to that enquiry,

The complaint is with respect to lodges 6, 9, 16 and 20. Lodge 16 was a store that did not comply and Mr Walker said that after Pheasantland wrote to the current owner she removed the non-compliant shed and replaced it with the approved shed. Lodges 6 and 20 (Mr and Mrs Walker) responded to the Pheasantland letter by saying that they understood that they did have permission to erect the external shed. The owner of lodge 9, Ms Melesi, informed Pheasantland that the shed was there when she purchased the lodge in December 2021 and that she was aware that there had been an investigation by Huntingdonshire DC as to whether there was a planning breach prior to her purchase of the lodge, and that investigation had been closed without any action. All the external sheds are now the same and Mr Walker contends that they are approved.

Mr Walker said that the allegation that Pheasantland had failed to ensure that Deeds of Covenant had been obtained from Susan Urban, Virginia Melesi, Stephen Newland, the Honeywill family, Carol Berwick and Mr and Mrs Steele. Mr Walker said that Pheasantland investigated the situation and rectified the situation for those six lodges but also for lodges 8 and 11. The wording of the deed of covenant was approved by Ms Saunders. In the course of carrying out the disclosure process Mr Walker said that they also discovered earlier deeds of covenant for Susan Urban, Stephen Newland, Cliff Dedynski (lodge 11), Carol Berwick and Linda Davis.

A further concern raised by Abbotsley is that a borehole was drilled into the land at Abbotsley Country Homes. Mr Walker accepted that the work had been carried out for the purpose of seeing whether there was an alternative source of water. This was after Ms Saunders had said “You get your own water or have your own borehole” and, according to the information Mr Walker was given by Ms Melesi, Ms Saunders had said to her that she did not mind how we got the water and “that if we drilled down on this plot that would be fine with her.” Mr Walker says that the drilling was with the permission of Ms Saunders and that the site was made good within weeks after water was not found, long before the section 146 notice was served.

The section 146 notice also included an allegation that Pheasantland “had produced to the Landlord a policy for Director Indemnity Insurance without the Landlord’s interest noted on it” and that had therefore failed to insure Abbotsley Country Homes. Prior to the section 146 notice, Ms Saunders sent a letter on 13 August 2022 which made the Pheasantland directors realise that the site insurance policy did not note the ultimate freeholder’s interest. Mr Walker said that Pheasantland immediately took steps to fix the error but, because the lease of Abbotsley Country Homes had more than 100 years left to run, the insurer could not see what the freeholder’s insurable interest would be. Eventually, the insurers were convinced by Pheasantland to add Abbotsley.

In accordance with the terms of the underleases, Pheasantland is to insure the lodges and pass the cost onto the lodge owners unless the lodges have insurance of their own. The site insurance is for the site itself together with associated plant, machinery and other assets including the bio-disc sewage treatment plant, the gates, and the underground pipes and cables. Pheasantland wrote to all the plot owners to obtain confirmation that they had all insured their lodges full replacement value as new in the event of the lodge being destroyed or damaged and that would maintain that insurance for as long and they own their lodge. Mr Walker said that all the lodges responded positively save for Mr Verdier who refused to answer the questions and so Pheasantland took out the insurance for the lodge and billed him in accordance with his underlease.

Mr Walker pointed out the error in the Particulars of Claim where it appears that the claimants believed the insurance policy was only for home insurance for lodge 3. Lodge 3 is the address of Mr Blackall, one of the directors of Pheasantland, and the insurance policy was sent to his address. The policy states that the use of the land is for private dwellings, which is an accurate description of Abbotsley Country Homes (there being no offices, factories or shops on the land) and the insurance shows the policyholder to be Pheasantland, the premises insured to be the “Land at Abbotsley Country Homes”, and that the policy also covers the roadway, the sewage plant, and the landscaping. Abbotsley is recorded as an interested party as the reversionary freeholder.

With respect to the allegations of nuisance and disturbance, those matters are dealt with in the evidence of the individual defendants. Mr Walker, on behalf of Pheasantland, says that it is not accepted that there has been any actionable nuisance, damage or disturbance. Mr Walker was asked in cross examination with respect to the permission given to lodge owners to maintain and repair the conduits on the Abbotsley land on behalf of Pheasantland. While he said he did not give any written permission for them to go onto the Abbotsley land he agrees that he had spoken with his fellow directors Ms Beresford-Ambridge and Mr Blackall and that he had approved of what had happened and thanked the lodge owners for restoring the water supply. It was being put to Mr Walker in cross examination that it did not need more than one person to turn a stop cock back on. His response was that the other people present were there to assist and when, for example, the pipe was damaged and a contractor needed to be instructed to restore the water supply, it was necessary for someone to guide the contractor to where he needed to go.

Ms Beresford-Ambridge is the owner of lodge 6 at Abbotsley Country Homes and a director, along with Mr Walker and Mr Blackall, of Pheasantland. She is not named as an individual defendant. She has been a director of Pheasantland since the company was formed. Together with Mr Blackall she deals with matters on site, such as maintaining the gardens, the alarm on the biotank, and the gates to Abbotsley Country Homes. Pheasantland does have managing agents, HML, but because Pheasantland is a company which operates for the lodge owners and does not have any separate source of income the directors endeavour to do as much as they properly can themselves in order to save money. With respect to the occupation of the lodges, Pheasantland make it clear that the lodges are only to be used as holiday accommodation, that they are to be vacant for one month a year and they issue the Estate Manual and refer to the article on holiday lets to make sure that the individual lodge owners understand the position. Pheasantland accept the statements from the lodge owners that they do not occupy their properties other than as holiday accommodation.

She considered her property in the United States to be her main home, spending six months a year there, until that property was sold in about 2022. Since then, she spends approximately 5 months of the year in Spain and the other 7 in the UK, although her partner also has a property in the UK that she spends time in as well as the lodge, she sails around the world and visits the other properties owned by her or her property – not only the US and Spain, but the Caymans and Thailand. She also sails (or used to sail) for about 2 months in every year and, like other lodge owners, she has an itinerant lifestyle with the lodge just being part of the complex jigsaw. She referred to it as a “fluid lifestyle”. From her fortunate position of having, between her and her partner, a number of properties, the lodge was purchased by her as a convenient base to enable her to visit her elderly mother and her children, one of whom is autistic. I am satisfied that the lodge is not her permanent home and that she has, like many of the other people who own the lodges, a lifestyle which involves her moving from one property to another so that the lodge has never been a permanent home. Mrs Beresford-Ambridge had confirmed she knows about the planning and lease restrictions on her occupation of the lodge and she says she abides by those, including the vacation of the lodge for at least one month in a year, and she has abided by that. Ms Beresford-Ambridge pays council tax for the lodge and is registered to vote in Abbotsley. She has kept Pheasantland informed of her principal address.

As a director of Pheasantland she is also aware of the obligations of the other lodge owners to live in the properties only as holiday home and she said that prior to the allegations made by Ms Saunders they had no reason to believe that the lodges were being used for anything other than holiday homes. She said that the directors take the obligations of Pheasantland very seriously and, although she would not have been dealing with emails in February 2022, as this was the time that she was ill with kidney issues having had hip surgery, Pheasantland would not have tolerated the suggestion made by Mr Gearing that a “posse of people” should “pay Jenny Wisson a visit.” As I set out when dealing with Mr Gearing’s evidence, there was clearly a great deal of frustration but statements such as this never should have been made. Importantly these words were never acted on.

There are no allegations of trespass or harassment made by Ms Saunders against Ms Beresford-Ambridge. Ms Beresford-Ambridge was herself assaulted by Ms Saunders, which is dealt with above.

Ms Beresford-Ambridge recognises that the obligation upon Pheasantland is to enforce the underleases. With respect to the sheds on the properties, she said that these had been erected before Pheasantland took over the Lease and she was aware that the local planning authority and the previous intermediate landlords had given permission for the sheds to be erected. There was nothing to indicate that Abbotsley (through Ms Saunders) objected to the sheds or that permission had not been granted. There was no objection to the transfer of the lease from PI Estates to Pheasantland, At the very least, Ms Beresford-Ambridge considered that there had been acquiescence to the sheds, and Ms Beresford-Ambridge had herself used the planning application by PI estates in order for there to be an identical shed next to her lodge, which apparently does not cause any issue.

Ms Beresford-Ambridge referred to the complaints made by Mr Verdier, in lodge 10, against the other lodge owners, and the many complaints against Mr Verdier. Mr Walker deals with this matter in his witness statement setting out that similar allegations of planning breaches were made by the claimants back in 2012 to Huntingdonshire District Council. Planning Contravention Notices were sent to the various lodge owners and a detailed investigation was undertaken taking many months. At the end of the investigation no steps were taken by the planning authority which indicates that they did not consider that any of the lodge owners were in breach.

Ms Ambridge-Beresford said that there needs to be some degree of proportionality when seeking to enforce the underleases to ensure that Abbotsley Country Homes is well ordered. Mr Walker referred in his evidence to the policy applied to any allegation of a breach as being that there first needs to be multiple complaints and the evidence and interpretation of the underlease needs to be clear, and the person complaining needs to put Pheasantland into funds in order to be able to enforce the terms of the lease. If that were not the case then a lodge owner who decides to make mischief could waste the time and money of Pheasantland by the making of all sorts of allegations that do not assist in the good management of the site. The example given by Mr Walker is of the complaint by Mr Verdier that there were flowerpots on the decking of one lodge whereas the underlease provides that the tenant is only to position furniture on the decking area, such furniture to be of hardwood materials. The issue of whether that means nothing other than hardwood furniture can be on the decking or that only furniture of hardwood can be on the decking, and other items such as flower pots, could be on the decking, would require clarification and it would be disproportionately expensive to obtain a determination.

Ms Beresford Ambridge was also asked about the occupation of the lodges during the covid lockdown. In all, there were 25 individuals spread across 20 lodges. Some lodges had no occupation whereas some had 2 people living there. As I have set out elsewhere, the covid regulations did not mean that Abbotsley Country Homes should have been shut down. Ms Saunders has misinterpreted the regulations. Many people who were on the site at the time of the lockdown were elderly and vulnerable. They not only could not move out of the lodges, as to do so would have been contrary to the regulations, but they practically should not have moved given their age and vulnerability. Despite Ms Saunders’ insistence to the contrary, in my judgment it would not have been appropriate for Mr and Mrs McDermott, then aged 79 and 82 and in poor health, to be forced to remove themselves from a well-spaced out country location, with support from local people in obtaining food and other essentials, into their accommodation in London shared with their working children and young grandchildren. It was unfortunate for those with properties abroad, such as Ms Beresford-Ambridge, that they could not get flights or other transport back to their homes abroad. Ms Beresford-Ambridge had only just flown back from the US and was intending to fly back out but was stopped from doing so because of covid. As soon as there was a flight available she flew back to Spain.

Keith Blackall is one of the three unpaid directors of Pheasantland Limited, having been appointed on 27 January 2018, but also gave evidence on his own account as the owner of the lodge 3 at Abbotsley Country Home with his wife Christina Blackall, as Ms Saunders had made allegations against him as a lodge owner.

When Mr and Mrs Blackall first purchased lodge 3 they were made aware of the planning restrictions and therefore knew that the lodge was holiday accommodation only and they provided details of their principal home to their immediate landlord and have kept their intermediate landlord informed of the change of principal address. When Pheasantland took over the Lease, Pheasantland reminded Mr and Mrs Blackall of the restrictions on occupancy and provided the Estate Manual. As a director of Pheasantland, Mr Blackall was involved in the updating of the Estate Manual and knew the restrictions on occupation the very well. Mr Blackall’s evidence was that they have never occupied the lodge as anything other than holiday accommodation.

He said that in the past his wife and he had stayed for about 6 to 7 months in lodge 3 and that the rest of the time was spent travelling or in the Canary Islands, which is where his wife preferred to go, and Florida where they had a long-term rental. He says that they would travel during December and January, March and April, and September and October. Mr Blackall said that they have now taken on a tenancy at The Old Rectory Cottage, Wispington, Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 5RN as a result of health concerns for both himself and his wife. That is very clear evidence that Mr and Mrs Blackall do not treat the lodge at Abbotsley as their main home. He was registered to vote and he was registered at a doctor and a dentist near to Abbotsley but that does not, in itself, establish he was occupying the lodge as his primary home.

During the covid lockdown Mr and Mrs Blackall were in occupation of the lodge. Given the ban on travel there was nothing that they could do other than to stay where they were. Ms Saunders seeks to rely upon the emergency lock down powers contained within the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350) (“the covid regulations”) as a reason for saying no-one, including Mr and Mrs Blackall, should have been in the lodges at that time. That reliance on the covid regulations by Ms Saunders is misplaced as she wrongly suggests that Abbotsley Country Homes is a business. It is not. It is a not a “caravan park” other than for the purpose of the wording under the planning legislation. These are 20 well-constructed substantial wooden log cabins with 125-year leases. The relevant regulations provide, under regulation 6:

“(1)

During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2)

For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(l)

to move house where reasonably necessary;”

Allegations have been made against Mr Blackall that he has trespassed onto the Abbotsley land on 24 February 2022, 16 July 2022, 25 July 2022 and 11 September 2022. He accepts entering onto Abbotsley land on the dates alleged, not as a trespasser but as an agent for Pheasantland to maintain and restore the flow of water which had been interfered with by Ms Saunders and her agents. Like the others who own lodges on Abbotsley Country Homes, he said he was acting under the general permission given by Pheasantland to ensure that the obligations under the Lease to ensure the maintenance and repair of the conduits. As one of the directors of Pheasantland, Mr Blackall was there to observe the work being carried out and to support those who were physically able to restore the water and, in accordance with the advice provided by the police to record everything they could, he was involved in filming what was happening on 6 and 11 August 2022. There was nothing threatening or harassing about that filming. In light of what had been happening and the interference with the supply of water, it was sensible to create a record and it was entirely proper for Pheasantland to request those who lived in the lodges to repair damaged pipes and restore the flow of water. As Mr Blackall said, they were without water as a consequence of Ms Saunders’ actions “what were we supposed to do?” On one of the videos recording the verbal altercation between the lodge owners and Ms Saunders when they were endeavouring to restore the water flow, Ms Saunders told Mr Blackall that “the most sensible thing is for you to resign.” It seems to me that this was an occasion when Ms Saunders was seeking to weaken the position of Pheasantland and isolate Mr Walker in order that she could exert control.

Further allegations were made against Mr Blackall that he had committed acts of harassment and anti-social behaviour, all of which he denied. I do not find that Ms Saunders has established that Mr Blackall’s behaviour amounted to harassment or anti-social behaviour. He was merely creating a physical record of what was happening.

Christina Blackall, who is also in her 70s, confirmed her husband’s evidence that they both own 3 Abbotsley Country Homes and that they now live in Lincolnshire. They used to spend up to 7 months a year in the lodge with the remainder of the time travelling, most particularly in the Canary Islands. She is not a director of Pheasantland.

Christina Blackall denied having trespassed on the Abbotsley land and denied any allegation of harassment or anti-social behaviour against her. She finds the injunction against her restricting her lawful use of public footpaths distressing and that the accusations that had been made against her by Ms Saunders have been undermining her good name and character. Ms Saunders now accepts that the allegations in the claim are unsubstantiated. While Ms Saunders has now withdrawn her claims she has not apologised for making them and she seems to fail to show any understanding of the impact of making false allegations against people who are behaving entirely lawfully. The allegation that Christina Blackall, who I have observed in court and in giving her evidence, was “acting in an intimidating manner by mocking and smirking at the Second Claimant” is preposterous.

Mr Gearing accepts that for a short period after the property was first purchased in 2007, he assisted Norwegian Log and then PI Estates (the predecessor to Pheasantland) with answering enquiries from prospective purchasers. While he was doing that he put up a sign with respect to his consultancy business but he removed that after complaints were received and thereafter did not carry out any business work from the lodge. Once all the lodges were sold he returned to his office in Bishops Stortford in any event.

During the occasion on 20 May 2022, when Mr Gearing was videoed on Ms Saunders’ mobile phone, he does not confront Ms Saunders but rather is confronted by her when he is described as a “very silly little man” by Ms Saunders. Her insults towards him were worse on the occasion in July 2022, recorded on his phone, when he and Mr Steele were driving along the concrete track. There is nothing on that video to support the assertion that Mr Gearing (or Mr Steele, who was driving the car he estimates at 9-10 miles per hour) was trying to run her over. What Ms Saunders is recorded as saying is “You do not run me over, now just get out of here just get out of here you little bastard – you’re a dirty little old man, now just get out. You are trespassing, right why were you in there, and you tried to run me over on here, just get out you filthy little arse, go on just get out.” The words alone do not record the manner in which she was delivering them.She then leant into car through the window and endeavoured to take his phone away from him. It was not clear to me why Mr Gearing was subjected to this level of vitriol but it was plainly very upsetting to Mr Gearing . It is deeply unpleasant, unprovoked and aggressive behaviour on the part of Ms Saunders. Whatever Ms Saunders has said about Mr Gearing it is plain from her behaviour that she is not scared or intimidated by him. She was the one who was abusing him verbally.

It is also clear from the video evidence that I have been shown that there were occasions when Mr Gearing was so deeply frustrated by what was happening, with Ms Saunders cutting off all water supply to the lodges, that he used language he should not have used. At one point Ms Saunders records him on her phone he said “you stupid arse, you haven’t a fucking clue have you?... Fucking silly arse.” This language is not acceptable but it was plainly not said as a threat, but in frustration about the situation created by Ms Saunders. He explained in his evidence that it is difficult to describe the feeling of not being able to wash, cook, or flush the toilet the water had been deliberately cut off. That frustration further manifested itself when Mr Gearing said that he would go to the house of Jenny Wisson, cut off the water supply to her home and park a car over the manhole cover. In the particulars of claim, it is pleaded that Jenny Wisson’s mother was 92 and seriously ill. It appears that Ms Saunders understands that cutting off water to the elderly and ill is a serious matter. Mr Gearing did not in fact turn off the water – this was a threat without substance. He should not have made such a threat but he did not carry through with it, and I do not believe that he ever intended to. Ms Saunders did turn off the water to the lodges – which included cutting off water to the elderly and the ill – despite understanding that is not something that should be done. Her explanation she wanted to “chivvy” the lodge owners to turn against Pheasantland and its directors, including Mr Walker, to agree with what she wanted, was an admission that she was using her control over the water supplying as a way to manipulate the lodge owners. I am satisfied that Mr Gearing’s language and empty threat was as a result of being pushed to the edge of breaking by Ms Saunders and her behaviour.

Mr Gearing was accused on another occasion of holding a spade to threaten violence to Joe Jefferies. The video evidence produced by Ms Saunders shows clearly that was not the case. Mr Gearing had the spade as he was endeavouring to assist Pheasantland with maintaining the water supply. He is holding it down by his side and there is nothing to suggest he was going to use it as a weapon or that he was threatening Joe Jefferies or anyone with the spade. This allegation was, in my judgment, an attempt to mislead the court and to place Mr Gearing in a poor light. Ms Saunders has now withdrawn that allegation although she continues to say that Mr Gearing chased Joe Jefferies, which I do not find is made out.

The allegations about “trespass” onto the woodland were concentrated particularly on Mr Gearing. It is alleged that from April 2020 he forced his way onto the Woodland and the Woodland Car Park “to which the Claimants had forbidden access and so trespassed on the land”; that on 9 separate days between 14 and 28 August 2021 video evidence shows that he “trespassed on the Woodland, breaking down a gate, strimming grass and bushes, sawing branches, cutting down trees and removing and replacing barriers.”; that he moved barriers preventing access to the car park and tampered with the entrance gate on 2 March 2022 and had “confiscated” 4 cameras in the Woodland car park. Mr Gearing, who at the time of his defence had the benefit of legal advice, admitted in his defence to entering the Jenny Wisson wood and the car park pursuant to the terms of the section 106 agreement entered into by Ms Saunders on 15 September 1994 that “members of the public shall be allowed free access to and use of the woodland area at all reasonable times” and was only acting in the ways alleged to restore his access to the wood to which he was entitled to do. As I explain later in this judgment, the section 106 agreement remains extant and Ms Saunders was wrong to interfere with the access to the wood by the placing of a metal barrier preventing access, instructing Joe Jefferies to dig a deep ditch in front of the entrance, and the placing of logs to impede access. There is currently an injunction prohibiting access to the wood which appears to have been granted on a false factual basis. That will need to be remedied. There was no trespass on the Jenny Wisson wood and, as I have set out in this judgment, Ms Saunders has now withdrawn her allegations against Mr Gearing for trespassing on the wood. Those allegations are therefore dismissed. Mr Gearing was (and is, alongside the other owners and occupiers of the lodges and members of the public) entitled to enter and use the Jenny Wisson wood.

Mr Gearing has also been accused of taking CCTV cameras. He said he was told by Mr Lance Honeywill that he took them (there being no signage that CCTV cameras were in operation). Mr Gearing told Mr Honeywill to return them to the location of the car park and, as far as he is aware, that was done. This allegation against Mr Gearing is not made out and is dismissed.

There is a further, individual, allegation of trespass that Mr Gearing trespassed on Abbotsley land on 9 November 2022 when he turned his car around having been on his way to see Mr Neil Warren. Mr Gearing denies any trespass and there was not sufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that there was a trespass. If there were a trespass it would have been minor and momentary and it is an indication of the way in which this case has been litigated by Ms Saunders that she would proceed with such an allegation which, even if made out, was accidental, incidental and a minor infringement.

Finally, Mr Gearing is alleged to have said “on occasions too numerous to particularise” that Ms Saunders had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and taken away in a police van. As I say elsewhere in this judgement “on occasions too numerous to particularise” is poor pleading and indicates that dates on which this is said to have happened are simply not known. Despite this, Mr Gearing does accept that on one occasion he did say to Mr Robert Verdier that he was surprised that, with all the hatred and lies coming from Ms Saunders, the police had not had her sectioned. Mr Gearing is of the view that Ms Saunders does suffer from a personality disorder, and he asked her in cross examination whether she was a narcissist (which would involve traits of being self-centered, manipulative, entitled and lacking of empathy). She denied that suggestion and there has not been any psychiatric assessment as far as I am aware. This single incident where Mr Gearing made comment to Mr Verdier does not amount to harassment.

In summary, I am satisfied on the evidence presented that Mr Gearing has not been acting in breach of the terms of his tenancy agreement. Further, the allegations made against him for trespass and/or harassment are not made out and are dismissed.

Ms Melesi purchased Lodge 9, Abbotsley Country Homes in December 2021. She said that she purchased it as a holiday home and her other property, which she shares with her daughter, is at a property in Eaton Ford. When she purchased the lodge she was provided with a sale pack and was told of the limitation of occupation – such as not using the property for work or for sending children to school. Ms Melesi is one of the individual defendants who purchased the lodge at a time when there were already difficulties with Ms Saunders. It has undoubtedly, and understandably, added to her upset that she has been placed in this position because of a potential mis-selling of her lodge, as she was not informed of the ongoing issues with respect to the provision of water to Abbotsley Country Homes. Ms Melesi is a senior oncology nurse working for the NHS. She has worked for the NHS for the past 40 years, and she has for the past six years worked as Head of Transformation and Clinical Programmes across the east of England overseeing strategic improvements across 19 hospital sites. During her time in court, while waiting to give evidence and while listening to the evidence of others, Ms Melesi was still keeping on top of her work. It is plainly a highly responsible, stressful and all-consuming job. I have no doubt, having heard her evidence, that she has the important role that she does because she is very good at her job.

As she made clear, she works persistently and during the covid-19 pandemic she was working as a volunteer, first at the evacuation centre in Milton Keynes when she was assisting English nationals returning from Wuhan, China and then at the East of England Incident Centre where she volunteered at weekends and evenings around her full-time job. She describes this as one of the most surreal and challenging periods of her career and it must have been extremely stressful. After the Incident Centre work was scaled down she continued by working as the clinical lead at local mass vaccination centre. All this volunteering was on top of her job as an oncology nurse and the obvious stresses of supporting cancer patients seeking to access diagnostics, treatment and theatre space during such a difficult period of time. That stressful work led Ms Melesi to decide that she would sell her four-bedroomed Victorian home at 31 Avenue Road, St Neots in order to purchase the holiday lodge at Abbotsley, to get away from the pressures of her work, while also obtaining the flat in town at 4 Lobellia Cottages, which she shares with her daughter and in whose name the property is registered. Ms Melesi’s evidence is that she had entered into an arrangement with her daughter that she would make a significant financial contribution to the purchase of 4 Lobellia Cottage from the sale of her former property, which resulted in her having a significant beneficial interest in that property, and that her daughter would pay the small mortgage of £53,000 thereby giving her daughter the opportunity to get onto the property ladder and gain a history of maintaining a mortgage and council tax. Ms Melesi was paying the ground rent together with the utility bills. Ms Melesi has her car registered at 4 Lobellia Cottage, she is registered to vote from there, and her employment records provide that her home is at 4 Lobellia Cottage. She said that the majority of her post goes to Lobellia Cottage and her work documentation is also kept there. She considers the property at Abbotsley Country Homes to be her holiday accommodation. She admits that she does work on her laptop when she is at the lodge, but that does not stop it being her holiday home. Anyone who works very hard understands that, even when on holiday, work continues. It is the nature of how people carry out their work now and as Ms Melesi may be contacted by clinicians at any time, it is not surprising that some of that will happen when she at the lodge. That does not interfere with her relationship with the lodge as being her holiday accommodation.

Given the nature of Ms Melesi’s work, the flexibility of where she can undertake her work, her four-day working week, and her lengthy holiday of 7 weeks, she is able to use her lodge as a respite from her demanding job. Ms Melesi is entitled to take her holiday time where she wishes to and she decided to do that at Abbotsley Country Lodges because, and I have seen this for myself, the lodges and the area around are very peaceful. The lodge is only about 4 miles from her property in St Neots and the proximity allows Ms Melesi as she puts it, to transition easily between properties. Sometimes her daughter stays at the lodge, while Ms Melesi is in their home in St Neots. I am satisfied that neither live at the lodge as their permanent residence and that they only occupy it as a holiday home. Ms Melesi plainly finds Ms Saunders’ interest in the way she lives her life highly intrusive and “shameful” to use her word. Of course, as Ms Saunders has raised occupation of the lodges an issue in the case it is necessary to cover this evidence. Ms Saunders’ interest in the way in which lodge owners (other than Mr Verdier) have occupied their lodges has only arisen after she did not get her own way with respect to the water issue.

Ms Melesi is aware of the limitations on her occupation of the lodge imposed by the lease and says she abides by those, including that she cannot be in the lodge for more than 11 months in a year. I am satisfied that she mainly conducts her work and daily affairs from the property in St Neots. She was a totally honest and straightforward witness and I have no hesitation in accepting her account that she comes and goes from the lodge but views that property as her holiday accommodation and treats it as such.

Unfortunately for Ms Melesi, she has suffered with the other lodge owners from Ms Saunders cutting off the water supply and being in receipt of what she describes as “alarming” communications from Abbotsley. As Ms Melesi only bought her lodge in 2021, she has bought into the problem and while she says she has been advised that she could bring a claim in misrepresentation she does not have the financial ability to do so, particularly with this litigation. As a consequence she cannot avoid the consequences of Ms Saunders’ behaviour, although she has expressed a desire to sell her property in order that she can move on from these difficulties. Ms Melesi was asked in cross examination about her views of Pheasantland. She said that, even though she is one of the individuals who took proceedings in the First Tier Tribunal about the payment of litigation costs within the service charge, her communications with Pheasantland and the directors (including Mr Walker) has always been polite and respectful and she has good communications with all the directors. These questions were plainly designed to drive a wedge between Ms Melesi and Pheasantland but Ms Melesi, like the other lodge owners, is mature and sensible and understands the FTT proceedings do not mean that they are not in alignment in their defence to the claims brought by Ms Saunders.

Ms Melesi has been subjected to allegations of being in breach of her lease by reason of there being a shed on her property. I am satisfied that the shed was in place at the time that Ms Melesi purchased her lodge in 2021 and that Ms Saunders was aware of the existence of the shed on the land at the time of the transfer in 2021 and for many years before, during which time ground rent was paid and accepted. I have no doubt that Ms Saunders has, for many years, kept a very close eye on what has been happening at the Abbotsley Country Homes land. The shed on the land is one which complies with the requirements of the planning authorities.

Ms Melesi, alongside some of the other lodge owners has been accused of trespassing “on occasions too numerous to particularise” onto the Abbotsley land and also entering the Jenny Wisson woodland. Other, specific allegations of trespass are that on 21 October 2022 and 31 October 2022 she trespassed by walking past Ms Saunders’ manor house and onto the golf course and on 10 November 2022, at 11.45am, she walked past the manor house and onto the golf course again the Fifth Defendant trespassed on the First Claimant’s land near Eynesbury Hardwicke Manor, walked past the house and onto the golf course. With respect to the allegation that there has been trespass “on occasions too numerous to particularise” that is, of course, lazy pleading and the allegations should be specified if they are to made and the vague allegations are not something that Ms Melesi or the other defendants can properly defend. As Ms Melesi has set out, there is no clear delineation of the three rights of way 5, 10 and 11. I have heard from Ms Seiler that the gap between footpath 10 and 11 falls onto land that does not belong to the claimants and that the farmers who own that land have no issues with the use of the footpaths or any crossing across the land that belongs to them. Insofar as there has been any walking onto land belonging the first claimant, I am satisfied that it was entirely inadvertent and no harm has been caused.

With respect to entry onto the Jenny Wisson wood, this lies adjacent to Ms Melesi’s lodge. For the reasons I have set out elsewhere in this judgment, Ms Melesi is entitled to enter the Jenny Wisson wood alongside other members of the public. I am satisfied that Ms Melesi has only been cutting back brambles, sticky weed and self-seeding elder where it interferes with her own lodge and this maintenance is entirely appropriate. The bird box is not in the wood – but it would not matter if it were. From the evidence presented in court it is clear that it is Ms Saunders is preventing the public access to an area that is open to the public. It appears that there may have been a similar attempt by Ms Saunders to deny public rights of access by suggesting that footpath 11 is redundant. That has been confirmed to be incorrect by the local authority and that allegation has been withdrawn by Ms Saunders.

Ms Melesi accepted that she went up to the manor house in May 2022 in the hope of being able to mediate a resolution to the dispute between Ms Saunders and the lodge owners. It may have been a naïve view and she said, reflecting on this, that “many people tried before me, I don’t know why I thought I can change it”. The reason she thought she could change it is because she is a sensible, rational person who thought it was possible to make things better. That transpired not to be the case that having been in the property for a longer period time would mean that she understands that there is no prospect of mediation. The gates were closed and Ms Melesi, who was with her daughter on that occasion, said she lost courage and returned back to the lodge and then left a letter between the gate and the gatepost. That was not a trespass. There is an implied licence for people to go onto someone’s property for the purpose of, amongst other things, delivering letters.

On 25 July 2022 and 10 and 11 September 2022, Ms Melesi was one of the lodge owners who acted under the auspices of Pheasantland to ensure repair and maintenance of the water supply. Ms Melesi was assisting with the digging and, while it was disputed on behalf of Ms Saunders, that was anything to do with maintaining and repairing conduits, in my judgment she was entitled to be on the Abbotsley land for that purpose.

The allegations made by Ms Saunders about the interaction between Joe Jefferies and Ms Melesi are very strange. I do not accept that Ms Melesi told Joe Jefferies that she walked the 8 mile off-road course. I further do not accept that Ms Melesi ever confronted Joe Jefferies. As I have set out, it is concerning that Joe Jefferies – first as a child and then as young man, has been dragged into this dispute by Ms Saunders and by his father, Simon Jefferies. What was clear from Joe Jefferies’ own evidence is that he had never been not been treated unpleasantly by Ms Melesi and that he had never felt threatened in her presence. For her part, Ms Melesi says that he is a polite and articulate young man. Joe Jefferies was clearly working on behalf of Ms Saunders, using her long-lensed camera and her drone in order to gather evidence, as well as asking directed questions about individual lodge owners. Ms Melesi’s concern was similar to the concern expressed by Ms Seiler, namely that a child should be used in this way. In my judgment, that was a justified concern.

Ms Melesi accepts that she would have paused when she saw a mini-digger on Ms Saunders land on 26 October 2022. That was entirely understandable given the history of Ms Saunders bringing diggers on to her land seemingly for the purpose of preventing the owners of the lodges having a supply of water.

Ms Melesi denies the allegations of trespass on 16 November 2022, but accepts that she did at one point “have a moment” with her dog when she exclaimed to the sky “Go and get fucking stuffed. Fucking bitch.” Ms Melesi says that this happened along the six-foot high fence and nowhere near to Ms Saunders. It was not meant to be heard by Ms Saunders, but it appears that Ms Saunders has recording devices as well as cameras hidden in various places around the property and it must be that one of those recording devices that picked up Ms Melesi. Having seen Ms Melesi give evidence, this is plainly not the sort of language that she would normally use but, on this occasion, she lost her calm. I do not condone the strong language used but, having witnessed how Ms Saunders behaves and the evidence of Ms Melesi and others about Ms Saunders’ behaviour, no-one looking at the situation objectively could blame Ms Melesi, a calm and collected individual, from “losing it” on this one occasion. I do not believe that Ms Saunders was upset about those words. In my judgment, she would have considered it a useful piece of evidence that she could endeavour to use against Ms Melesi. As Ms Melesi is not represented I asked her some further questions about the circumstances in which she said those comments. While counsel for Ms Saunders was concerned that I was asking questions in order to get a full picture of the atmosphere at Abbotsley, in my judgment it is important that a full picture was obtained and it was not within the power of Ms Saunders to exclude relevant evidence, particularly when Ms Saunders relies upon “extreme anti-social behaviour” as part of her case. Ms Melesi’s evidence was that she was just on a walk and was thinking about all the arguments and all the money that had been spent and how it takes over your life. She said the words were not chosen, they just came out.

Remarkably, court time was spent on the time Ms Saunders ran over Ms Melesi’s flip flop. This was not because Ms Melesi was concerned about it, but because Ms Saunders again wanted to revisit the incident when she was found guilty in both the magistrates court and the Crown Court of assaulting Ms Beresford-Ambridge by using her car. There is nothing in the point and it wasted court time. To the extent that it is necessary, I accept Ms Melesi’s flip flop or slider was run over by Ms Saunders’ car tyre and that had her foot been further into the footwear, then she would have been hit by the car. Thankfully that did not happen.

Mr Laurence (Lance) Honeywill’s evidence had to be delayed as a consequence of an incident that took place in a nearby coffee shop in the morning prior to his evidence being due. I am satisfied that the incident that delayed Mr Honeywill’s evidence was typical of the sort of petty, annoying behaviour that the residents of Abbotsley Country Homes lodges have had to endure over the past years. This incident resulted in a waste of court time, and therefore costs for part of the wasted time were ordered to be paid by Ms Saunders.

I find it difficult to describe what a monumental waste of valuable court time this was, save for the fact that it enabled me to see first-hand the bizarre way in which Ms Saunders behaves. The waste of time was not in any way the fault of Mr Honeywill. He was just minding his own business when Ms Saunders decided to act in a way which was bound to unsettle and anger him in the context of this litigation. Mr Honeywill was standing in the coffee queue in anticipation of getting ready to give evidence. He was standing in the way that he always seems to stand, with his legs slightly apart and holding his arm with his other hand. It is exactly the stance he had when he cross examined his friend and fellow lodge owner, the 87 year old Mrs Seiler. He was clearly not being aggressive to her as he was reminding her of the occasion when he had come across her crying and distressed when she had discovered her water had been cut off on Ms Saunders’ instructions on 24 February 2020.

Mr Steele himself was asked questions about what had happened. He said that he knew he could not talk to anyone, other than his wife, and was not to talk about the case to anyone while he was in the middle of giving his evidence. He said that he had said good morning when he saw Mr Steele Honeywill and that Mr Honeywill had mentioned the meeting in the café and that he had told Mr Steele the same as he had told counsel both for the claimants and the first defendant.

In my judgment, Ms Saunders was deliberately attempting to mislead the court when she photographed Mr Lance Honeywill. She was not simply misunderstanding Mr Honeywill’s stance as she alleged that he had moved aggressively towards her, when he had done nothing of the sort. When I asked her about the photographs, she had to accept that he was in the same location, near to a stationary armchair, in both photographs and he had not moved other than putting his two feet together. The difference in Mr Honeywill’s size in the two photographs was because Ms Saunders had zoomed in on him. This was such a petty incident but, behaviour like this on the part of Ms Saunders is unacceptable. It upset Mr Honeywill, in my view either deliberately or at least without any thought for the consequences upon him, and therefore adversely impacted upon the running of the case. He could not give evidence that day and it caused delay to the progress of the trial – which was not only to the detriment of this trial but to the general running of the court. It is an example of how Ms Saunders reacts to the defendants and how she uses her own unusual behaviour to then attack them.

Mr Honeywill describes how she refers to him as a violent, evil and dangerous man and that he is concerned with how many people she may have repeated those falsehoods. In his closing submissions he refers to having been called a “killer and scum” in front of others during the magistrates’ court trial when she was convicted of assaulting Ms Beresford-Ambridge. I do not consider that he is violent, dangerous or “evil”. He is plainly very upset and angry about the situation at Abbotsley Country Homes, and he accepts that. He has been placed in a very difficult financial situation because of what has happened through this litigation and he is trying, with his wife, to support his son Darren who requires support because of his bi-polar condition. As both have said, Abbotsley Country Homes ought to have been a haven for him but has become a nightmare.

There are various parts of the evidence which show that Mr Honeywill is absolutely furious about what has happened at Abbotsley and, in particular, by the way in which Ms Saunders has behaved and encouraged others, including Simon Jefferies, to behave. Mr Honeywill willingly admits that he is fuming about the entire situation and he will use very strong language and the language of threats (I will come to this in further detail) but he has never been physical, he has no convictions, and he controls himself. While the language he uses, and the verbal threats he makes, cannot be condoned in any way, it is clear to me that he has (along with the other lodge owners and occupiers) been subjected to an unbelievable amount of pressure. Where others have reacted in other ways, Mr Honeywill’s verbally aggressive behaviour is the way in which he reacts. He does not resort to violence which is in marked contrast to Ms Saunders who does have convictions for assault.

Mr Lance Honeywill said how his wife and he had purchased the Abbotsley Country Homes lodge in March 2022 having worked very hard over the previous 20 years in France, and this property was to be a place for them to spend time in the UK in order to be near to family and to be able to relax. Mr Honeywill spoke about how having a real wooden lodge was always a dream for him but how, because of the behaviour of Ms Saunders, it has turned into a complete nightmare. He described in his evidence of how he was financially “on his knees” and that he has been ill through stress. It was clear from Mr Lance Honeywill’s evidence that, like others, he does not live in the Abbotsley lodge other than as a holiday property and that he, like others, lives a life which means he is living between different properties. In fact, for Mr Honeywill, life at Abbotsley Country Homes has been made so miserable by the behaviour of Ms Saunders that he now does not stay there but lives in Suffolk.

Mr Lance Honeywill was particularly distressed when the water was shut off without any notice to him on 22 February 2022. He had recently purchased plot 12 at Abbotsley Country Homes when this happened, and had visitors who were going to come to the lodge. He had sunk his savings into purchasing the lodge at Abbotsley Country Homes as he had always had a dream of owning a log cabin in a country setting and, with the nearby woodland, to which he ought to have had access, his property was his dream. He was therefore very angry when the water was cut off. He had not previously met her and she was very upset because of the lack of water.

Mr Honeywill went to Ms Saunders in the first instance, and saw the then 84 year old Ms Seiler on the farm track who was very distressed because of the lack of water. He first went to Ms Saunders, who refused to talk to him directly, and they conversed through the intercom. I am satisfied from the evidence of Mr Honeywill, and the almost contemporaneous email from Mr Blackall, that at that point Ms Saunders said she knew nothing of the water stoppage and that it must be a leak. That was a lie. Ms Saunders now willingly accepts that she instructed Mr Simon Jefferies to turn off the water. Ms Saunders said that she could not hear Mr Honeywill, so he had to resort to shouting, with Ms Saunders filming him. I do not accept that he called her a “fucking old cunt” (as pleaded) several times or use the words “I’ll get you”. In my judgment, Ms Saunders has deliberately provoked the owners of the lodges by wrongly cutting off the supply of water, and has recorded any adverse reaction so that she can use that evidence against them. It is calculated and vicious behaviour.

Mr Honeywill next went to Mr Simon Jefferies ,where he found that Mr Jefferies was not present in his mobile caravans. Mr Honeywill was filmed throughout on the ring door bell system that Mr Jefferies appears to have placed on the top of a pole on the Abbotsley land he occupies with the permission of Ms Saunders. It is clear that Mr Honeywill is both confused and furious about what has happened. Mr Jefferies, who had been seen by a resident of the cottages, to leave the site shortly after the water was shut off, denied that he had shut off the water. That was also a deliberate lie. It is not clear to me why he also lied, although there may have been an agreement with Ms Saunders to deny involvement in the removal of water. This denial of interfering with the water does of course indicate that both Ms Saunders and Mr Jefferies knew that it was not a legitimate action. The lies from both Ms Saunders and Mr Jefferies clearly infuriated Mr Honeywill further and in reaction to the behaviour of Mr Jefferies he said, amongst other things, the following: “If you keep fucking about with my life; I will fuck with you”; “I have just moved in… I am not to be messed with. If you do it again [turn off the water] I will strangle you.” He admits to being very angry Mr Jefferies responded by lying saying it was nothing to do with him. Mr Honeywill also said that he would come to find him, and “you do it for the bitch, the cunt.”

Mr Honeywill’s language on that occasion was extremely aggressive and plainly unacceptable. Mr Jefferies did not seem at all distressed by it and said that when he returned he would come to find Mr Honeywill. In my judgment, Mr Jefferies understood that this was a deeply frustrated and angry individual, Mr Honeywill said he was “spitting [mad]” who was verbally expressing his anger, having been wound up by what had happened and the impact it was having on him. After all, when this verbal altercation was taking place, Mr Jefferies knew that the water had been deliberately turned off by him on the instructions of Ms Saunders before he left for his work in Spain. Mr Warren had observed Simon Jefferies leaving.

On another occasion when Mr Honeywill met Mr Jefferies the conversation was again covertly recorded. During that conversation Mr Honeywill referred to Mr Jefferies and his son being intimidatory which included, he alleged, putting bottles on the fence belonging to Mr Warren in order to intimidate him – the reference being to when Mr Warren was sprayed in the face by Ms Saunders, and the comment allegedly made by Ms Saunders when Mr Warren’s wife died “1 down, 3 to go”. Again, Mr Honeywill used aggressive language – telling Mr Jefferies he had been a “horrible bastard” as he had cut off the water but said it was a leak; and that he should “tell that cunt up there”, a reference to Ms Saunders. There is no doubt that Mr Honeywill had used aggressive language in that encounter and he had expressed his views of Mr Jefferies and Ms Saunders in clear and offensive language telling Mr Jefferies “I hate the fucking air that you breathe… Tell that cunt who lives over there that she has messed with the wrong fucker” and made reference to the Wissons, and that he thought Mr Jefferies was running drugs from his mobile caravans. However, Mr Jefferies was clearly not concerned by it and Ms Saunders was not present. Mr Honeywill was expressing his anger to Mr Jefferies who had said to him “people like you deserve this.” Mr Honeywill says he wanted Mr Jefferies know that he was not someone who could be intimidated and it was clear from Mr Honeywill’s evidence that he felt protective and a responsibility towards others who had lodges at Abbotsley Country Park, who were older and more vulnerable.

Part of the allegation against Mr Honeywill is that he had referred to Joe Jefferies, Mr Jefferies’ 15 year old son, as “just a little, little boy” which Mr Jefferies had taken as a threat. What had happened, according to the evidence of Mr Honeywill, and I accept his evidence on this, was that Joe Jefferies was using a gesture indicating masturbation and that Mr Honeywill was a wanker. Mr Honeywill’s reaction was a statement to show that Joe Jefferies was behaving like the teenage boy he was. Mr Honeywill said that had no interest in Joe Jefferies at all. The surprising aspect of this, and the issue that concerned lodge owners such as Ms Seiler and Ms Melesi, was that Mr Jefferies was willing to involve his son in what was happening at Abbotsley.

Mr Honeywill does not recall using the word “cunt” directly to Ms Saunders on any occasion. There is one occasion recorded on Ms Saunders ring doorbell when Mr Honeywill is standing at the end of Ms Saunders’ driveway – approximately 5 metres from the house – when the “cunt” word is picked up. While it is recorded, and said by Mr Honeywill, it is highly distorted as if the recording has been turned up very high. Mr Honeywill did not come anywhere near Ms Saunders’ property and I do not accept it caused any alarm or distress to Ms Saunders but (as with the recording of Ms Melesi) was something said as a release of frustration but not at Ms Saunders. It was put to Mr Honeywill that he was adopting an aggressive stance when standing 5 metres away from the property. It was obvious to the court that he was standing as he tends to stand and, even if his stance could be misinterpreted to be aggressive, he was so far from the house that he could not by any stretch of the imagination be exhibiting aggression which would cause alarm or distress.

Mr Honeywill is alleged to have entered the woodland car park on 28 February 2022, which he accepts because it was public and the sign was still in place. For the reasons I set out elsewhere in this judgment, Mr Honeywill was not trespassing in the Jenny Wisson wood as that woodland is open to the public pursuant to the section 106 agreement that Ms Saunders entered into and acknowledged as still being in place when she entered into the Lease with Luddington in 2003. Ms Saunders has, in any event, now withdrawn the allegations of trespass onto the woodland and those allegations are therefore formally dismissed. I do not find established the allegation that he had said to Ms Wisson “I hope you die soon, you cunt,” but he does accept that he did say (in reference to Ms Saunders) what is the point of all this you will be dead soon – in reference to her age. That was plainly a very unpleasant thing to say, but it was not a threat.

Mr Honeywill admits going on to the Abbotsley land on 24 February 2022 in order to restore the water to Abbotsley Country Homes. He did so with the authority of Pheasantland, who have an obligation to repair and maintain the conduits and, while it is accepted that there was no written authority provided prior to entering on the land, there was a discussion that Pheasantland needed the assistance of those who were there to restore the water supply and, subsequent to the work being carried out, Pheasantland thanked all those who had helped, including Mr Honeywill, thereby ratifying the steps taken. Of course, if Ms Saunders had not decided to wrongfully cut off the water in order to “chivvy” along the owners of the lodges to turn on Pheasantland, then Mr Honeywill and others would not have had to go on to the land in order to restore the flow of water.

Mr Lance Honeywill has clearly been greatly impacted by the behaviour of Ms Saunders and the defendants in this trial other than the first defendant, is unrepresented. Darren Honeywill has, as a consequence of this litigation, had to be open about his mental health condition – namely that he is bi-polar. His parents said that allowing Darren to spend time at lodge 12 was to give him some much-needed stress-free time. Unfortunately, within 8 days of moving into the lodge, the water was turned off by Simon Jefferies on the instructions of Ms Saunders which was “the last thing [he] needed as the stay was intended to be stress free”.

It is alleged by Ms Saunders that Darren Honeywill occupies lodge 12 at Abbotsley Country Homes permanently and that he works from there. It is also alleged by the claimants that “on occasions too numerous to particularise, the Eighth Defendant has trespassed on the First Claimant’s land particularly walking through the Sheep Field, the boundary fences and up the eastern boundary.” It is further alleged that he “laughs and mocks” when he is told to cease his trespass. This allegation is far too broad an allegation, without any specifics of dates and places. Given Ms Saunders’ tendency to record in particular detail the movement of each of the defendants, I am not willing to accept such a broad allegation is made out without corroborating evidence to establish the truth of it. Darren Honeywill said that “we were videoed at every moment to elicit reactions” and, from what I have seen, including the fact that Ms Saunders photographed Lance Honeywill, Darren Honeywill’s father, when he was standing in the café queue before coming to give evidence to this court, I am satisfied that Ms Saunders does photograph and video the lodge owners persistently. As I have found her to be willing to deliberately mislead the court, I do not accept any of her allegations unless they are independently corroborated.

A further allegation against Mr Darren Honeywill is that between 4 to 8 July 2022 he stole a chain, padlocks and cameras from the manhole/inspection chamber on the golf course and then glued up the manhole. He accepts that he removed the chains, but left them on the ground together with the padlocks, and he also accepts that in an attempt to stop Ms Saunders arranging for the water to be cut off again (as he considered that every time the water was restored she would just cut it off again), he did glue the manhole. He denies knowing about the cameras, let alone taking the cameras, and given the other evidence I have heard in this case I am satisfied that Darren Honeywill had nothing to do with this. The fact that Ms Saunders relies upon Mr Simon Jefferies having told her that Darren Honeywill had confessed to him, but Mr Jefferies does not say anything about it in his own evidence, is another indication of Ms Saunders seeking to mislead the court.

Darren Honeywill admitted to entering the golf course land on both 16 July 2022, 30 July 2022 and 6 August 2022. On both occasions he says that he was acting for the purpose of restoring the water supply to the lodge land. As he put it, it was “the right thing to do”. Not only was his own water supply cut off by the actions of Ms Saunders and those instructed to act on her behalf, but he was concerned for others on the lodge land, some of whom were elderly and some with serious illnesses. I am satisfied that Darren Honeywill had the authority of Pheasantland to carry out those works of maintaining and restoration of conduits, both by the request to anyone on the site to assist with restoring the water supply when wrongfully cut off by Ms Saunders but also by ratifying those acts by thanking people after the works of restoration had been done. I see nothing in the photographs of Darren Honeywill to support any allegation of threats by Darren Honeywill. There is no evidence to support him interfering with what Ms Saunders’ contractors were doing, although he does accept that observing the works, as he was, may have been a distraction. He accepts that at some times he was smiling but he denies that he was mocking and he denies that he was, as Ms Saunders alleges “violent, aggressive and with a completely out of control look of rage”. I do not accept Ms Saunders’ allegations as there is a lack of corroboration and her given her efforts to mislead the court in other respects, I have no trust in her allegations.

Darren Honeywill gave two particularly important pieces of evidence with respect to the cutting off of the water supply by Ms Saunders. He said that prior to the second digger driver arriving (which must be Mr James Bradbury) on 16 July 2022, there was a first digger driver approximately 3 to 4 days earlier. If he is correct on his timing, then that would have been about 12 to 13 July 2022. Darren Honeywill said he saw him with the digger on the land and he asked him what he was doing and he said that he was working on the trench. When Darren Honeywill explained to him about the elderly and ill people in the lodges and that he was digging a trench in order for the water to be cut off, the digger driver had, what Darren Honeywill called, a “melt down” and said that he wanted nothing to do with it and just left, saying he wanted to go home.

The second important piece of evidence was with respect to how he found the pipe when the water had been cut off, allegedly accidentally, when Mr Bradbury cut through it. Darren Honeywill was explaining the work he was carrying out on the Abbotsley land with respect to restoring the water that had been cut off. He said that the water pipe had not been damaged in one place, as I had previously understood the situation from Mr Bradbury’s evidence when he said that he had accidentally hit the pipe when he was creating a trench, but that the pipe had been cut twice and that it cleanly to the edge of the trench that had been dug. Darren Honeywill said he had to cut around the pipe in order for there to be room to fix the pipe that there was very little water in the bottom of the trench, indicating that the water had in fact been cut off before the work had been carried out. Otherwise there would have been a gushing of water from the broken pipe.

Darren Honeywill is not called as an expert (and he does not purport to be an expert) and he therefore cannot give evidence with respect to his opinion about what caused the clean cuts to the pipe close to the trench walls. However, he can say what he saw from which I can draw common sense conclusions. James Bradburywas not cross examined on the basis that he had cut the pipe twice and cleanly and it is therefore not appropriate for me to make any findings with respect to who was responsible for the cutting of the pipe in this way. However, I am satisfied that the water had been cut off before the pipe was cut and that steps were taken by someone to make it more difficult to fix the pipe after it was cut. I find that it was not an accident.

During his cross examination, Darren Honeywill referred to the time that he was pushed off the road by Ms Saunders. When he said that in cross-examination, Counsel on behalf of Ms Saunders sought to argue that he was not entitled to mention such an incident as he had not pleaded the incident and he had not challenged Ms Saunders about this incident. I have dealt with this issue in a separate judgment handed down on 27 May 2025 which should be referred to for the full reasons for my determination that it would be wrong for the court to exclude Darren Honeywill from giving evidence about this incident are set out in that judgment. In summary, his evidence on this matter was admissible and relevant. In opening the case, Ms Bretherton KC had referred to “serious anti-social behaviour” on the part of the defendants and the defendants are entitled to defend themselves against allegations which are being used by Ms Saunders both to support her application for an injunction against the defendants for nuisance and harassment and to deny any application that may be needed to obtain relief from forfeiture. While Ms Saunders sees the world from her own perspective, the court’s role is to consider all relevant and admissible evidence. Given the serious allegations of harassment it is necessary for the court to consider the context of any activity and it is different where someone is reacting to where someone swears or gesticulates offensively, when entirely unprovoked. For the court to only see one side of the evidence, and to be excluded from seeing all the relevant and admissible evidence, would be fundamentally unfair.

Darren Honeywill referred to this incident in the statement he gave on 23 July 2023 in response to the allegation made against him so that, although not pleaded by him, it is pleaded by Ms Saunders and she was aware that it was part of the evidence against her. There has been no interference with Ms Saunders’ article 6 rights and, as leading counsel knows, it is inappropriate to go behind a judgment that has not been appealed. Darren Honeywill was not obliged to plead the incident as he does not use the incident to bring a claim against Ms Saunders and he did not need to plead this part of his evidence in his defence. It is what is referred to in Phipson on Evidence as an “evidential fact”. Of course, the evidence against Ms Saunders comes from her own dashcam footage which she had failed to disclose when she should have done and only did so when told to during the course of trial. Had she complied with her disclosure obligations in accordance with the court orders and the civil procedure rules then no doubt this incident would have been dealt with in detail in the statements. The dashcam footage from 30 July 2022 has been extremely enlightening. It shows her behaviour behind the wheel and, while this court has not seen the evidence that led to her conviction for assaulting Ms Beresford-Ambridge, it gives an insight into the way that Ms Saunders behaves.

It was also wrong to suggest that Darren Honeywill could not raise the matter without having cross-examined Ms Saunders. Ms Saunders, having had the opportunity to deal with the allegation contained in his witness statement either in one of her many subsequent statements or by evidence in chief, did not deal with it. Ms Saunders has the benefit of both leading and junior counsel and is a retired solicitor. She cannot rely upon a lack of understanding of procedure. With nothing said by Ms Saunders, there was simply nothing to challenge by way of cross examination. Ms Saunders was, of course, entitled to cross examine Darren Honeywill on his account.

In the particulars of claim, the second claimant had alleged that on 30 July 2022 Darren Honeywill had “wrongfully entered the First Claimant’s land and, when asked to leave, refused.” That is not only untrue but fails to reveal what Ms Saunders was doing. The dashcam footage shows Ms Saunders moving out of the yard to the manor house she lives in, and then coming out onto the concrete road which joins the highway and which, amongst other things, provides access to the Abbotsley Country Homes site. During that time her speed is moderate and entirely suitable for the conditions. She has the radio on and is talking to someone “hands free” on the telephone.

As soon as Ms Saunders joined the concrete road on this occasion she increases acceleration and speeds along the road. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason the speedometer is not engaged, and it is therefore not possible to know precisely how fast Ms Saunders is driving, but the impression I had from the dashcam was that she was driving faster than was appropriate for the road circumstances. After the incident with Darren Honeywill she started driving again and quickly reached 26 mph. By comparing that driving I estimate that the speed of the vehicle before she stopped was in the range of 25-30 mph, which is plainly too fast for the conditions. Ms Seiler has expressed concerns in her evidence about the potential dangers of the speed at which Ms Saunders drives her Mercedes SUV 4x4 along the concrete road, over which Ms Saunders has, with the lodge owners, a right of access and egress. Having seen the footage, and some other footage showing the way in which Ms Saunders can drive at high speed along that concrete track, I understand Ms Seiler’s concerns.

When Ms Saunders saw Darren Honeywill on the road, she terminated the telephone call. The car had been moving towards Darren Honeywill as the sensor starts bleeping and she then slows and stops the car approximately 10 to 15 feet away from Darren Honeywill, who has moved out of her way onto the grass verge. Unlike Ms Beresford-Ambridge, who was on crutches having just undergone hip replacement surgery when assaulted by Ms Saunders, Mr Darren Honeywill was able to jump out of the way. Her first words, shouted not spoken, are “What are you doing on my land? You get off my land, you scumbag. Just get off my land, right? Just get off my land, you vicious scumbag, just get off my land. Go on. Get off my land. Get off my land.” Seven times she tells Darren Honeywill to get off her land, when he had not been on her land but had moved there in order to get out of her way when she was moving her car towards him on the roadway. In addition to this repeated aggressive demand, what is striking about this encounter is that Darren Honeywill had not met Ms Saunders before, and he said he was both surprised and confused about being addressed in this way. In his written closing submissions Darren Honeywill, in somewhat of an understatement, says “I knew something was not right.”What Ms Saunders said to him is: “I don’t care you go back on your land. Go on. Darren Honeywill, or whatever your name is, get on your own land and don’t get on mine. Go on, go. Just get off my land. Just get off my land.” It is clear from the footage, that as Ms Saunders slowed and stopped the car she pulled her car towards the right hand side of the road where Darren Honeywill was standing. When starts the car again she quickly accelerates to 11 mph (the speedometer now engaged). Ms Saunders could not have been oblivious to what she was doing and her car sensor was bleeping loudly as it had detected a nearby object (Darren Honeywill). While this is happening, Darren Honeywill is saying – you are trying to run me over which she denies, tell him he should not be “living here with your kids. Get off my land now.” When he says “You are trying to run me over” her response is “I’m not trying to run you over. I want you off my land.” Darren Honeywill tells her to “Fuck off, go on.” She then says “when the police catch your evil father they can catch up with you too” and “How is the house in Letchworth, 54 Jarden”, showing she has been researching his home address.She also told him not to drop his cigarette as that “may set fire to the whole of the gypsy place.” She told him to “go on go” and then asked why he had the children with him. Darren Honeywill said he was very confused by what she was saying. He had never met her and yet she knew his name and where he used to live. I have no doubt that Ms Saunders was using her car together with the words shouted “get off my land” to intimidate Darren Honeywill.

It is a bizarre encounter, where Ms Saunders shows real anger and viciousness towards Darren Honeywill, a man she has never met before, and who was not even on her land when she came upon him. For Darren Honeywill, who was supposed to be resting and recovering in his parents’ country lodge, this was a traumatising incident – “it left what was supposed to be a retreat to get well into a nightmare.” As Darren Honeywill returned to the gates of Abbotsley Country Homes, Ms Saunders followed him in her car and spotted Ms Melesi who she referred to as “that evil creature” and then shouts at her about trespassing on the golf course land shouting “don’t you ever come on my land again” and accuses her of being 400m from the nearest footpath. She then said something which, as Darren Honeywill put it, she “morphed” her words – it was as if she held herself back from saying something more. What was clear was that she shouted “you are turning the place into a traveller’s site which is about [ pause] what you are due” and then shouted out of her window “you wait until you have no water” which was followed by her shouting “you have not won the case I can tell you.” She then told Ms Melesi “you have no right on my land … you are just appalling, don’t trespass on it again. Alright?: Bye, bye you stupid bitch.”

The strength of Ms Saunders vitriol, the way in which she shouts profanities at the lodge owners, and the manner in which she started the altercation, first with Darren Honeywill, who at one point in the altercation turns his back on Ms Saunders in her car as he is clearly concerned about his children becoming involved as they do not know what was happening, and then with Virginia Melesi, could not be further from the way in which Ms Saunders seeks to portray herself in pleadings and witness statements. I am satisfied that the truth is how she is shown on the dashcam footage; the misrepresentation is her portrayal of herself. She is not just a single woman in her late 70s living on her own “surrounded by the defendants” . She is far from “terrified” as she states in her first statement. The dashcam of 30 July 2022 shows her to be bullying Darren Honeywill and Darren Honeywill’s children (Christina Blackall gave evidence that she heard his daughter scream during this incident) and Virginia Melesi.

The next incident alleged against Darren Honeywill by Ms Saunders was that he threw a cup of tea over her when she went to visit Robert Verdier. Again, having seen the video footage, it is now possible to see the truth of what in fact happened. Ms Saunders to exclude the court from making any determination by withdrawing the allegation. The allegation is of course dismissed on her withdrawal, but it is important to record the difference between what Ms Saunders alleged and what in fact happened as this is yet another example of how Ms Saunders deliberately sought to mislead the court in order to put the defendants in a bad light.

This incident took place very shortly after the incident which had involved Ms Saunders assaulting Ms Beresford-Ambridge by pushing into her with her Mercedes SUV 4 x 4 when Ms Beresford-Ambridge was on two crutches as she was recovering from a hip operation. I have not seen the dashcam footage of that incident as Ms Saunders is very keen I do not see it as she alleges that it might adversely impact upon her application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) with respect to her conviction for assault.. I do not accept that my seeing that footage would have any impact upon the view taken by the CCRC with respect to her application, particularly as Ms Saunders accepts that she does not have any new evidence to present to the CCRC. I have acceded to Ms Saunders’ request not to look at that footage and I rely upon the fact that she was convicted to the criminal standard both in the magistrates court before a DJ(MC) and again in the Crown Court, before a Recorder and two lay magistrates, when she appealed the conviction. I do not go behind the conviction, nor would I allow Ms Saunders to make a collateral attack the credibility of the witnesses, including the victim, with respect to that conviction. The convictions establish that, upon the evidence being scrutinised on two separate occasions, the victim and witnesses to the assault were believed beyond reasonable doubt.

In the context of that assault having just happened, a couple of days after the incident involving Darren Honeywill on the farmers’ concrete track, the video records Darren Honeywill arriving into the central green area of the lodges. He is plainly very angry and is demanding to know from Ms Saunders whether she used her car to run into Ms Beresford-Ambridge on her crutches. Mr Verdier is also there and he has two cups of tea in his hands. Ms Saunders is either videoing or taking photographs of Darren Honeywill and three of those photographs were included in Ms Saunders’ evidence. If there was a video or more photographs, these have not been disclosed. Ms Saunders does not back off but continues to video or photograph Darren Honeywill. Darren Honeywill then takes one of the cups of tea out of the hand of Mr Verdier (Ms Saunders is not shown holding a cup of tea at any time) and throws it onto the ground. At no time does Ms Saunders react to the tea being thrown on the ground but continues to video or take photographs. Mr Verdier walks off with his cup of tea and Darren Honeywill places the, now empty, second up on the ground. Ms Melesi is close by and says something to Mr Verdier as he passes along the lines of “we know where you stand now.”

Darren Honeywill was swearing at Ms Saunders, telling her that she was a “vile woman” that she was not welcome at the lodges and that she should “fuck off”. He also said to Mr Verdier something along the lines of “don’t you start, you deserve a slapping”. Darren Honeywill gave evidence that he tries to keep out of the way of Mr Verdier, who lives permanently in the neighbouring property to his parents’ lodge, as he says that he tries to pry into his life. He denies ever threatening Mr Verdier. Again, I accept Darren Honeywill’s evidence.

Darren Honeywill was plainly furious about what had happened to Ms Beresford-Ambridge, which resonated with what had happened to him a few days earlier. Before the video was played to me counsel, on instructions, said that Ms Saunders was now saying that the cup of tea had been taken out of her hand and thrown over her before the video started and that was why it could not be seen on the video. Having seen the video I asked whether it was being said by Ms Saunders that the cup of tea had been taken out of her hand, thrown over her, and then given back to Mr Verdier as the video showed him with two cups. It was then said, on instructions, that when she said “thrown” what she meant was that the cup had been taken out of her hand and that the tea had gone over her hand. A different allegation to the one pleaded and supported by her witness evidence. When it was clear, on slow motion playing of the video, that when the cup was taken out of the hand of Mr Verdier it was a full cup of tea (so it could not have either been “thrown” over Ms Saunders or “gone over” her hand when the cup was removed from her) she said that the tea had splashed on her when it went onto the ground.

While this is a ridiculously small incident blown out of all proportion, as so much has been in this trial, it is important as it shows how manipulative Ms Saunders is and how she makes up evidence to support her false allegations against the individual defendants. Her allegation against Mr Darren Honeywill was that he had assaulted her. That is a serious allegation. It was a lie and Ms Saunders knew it to be a lie. It is only the existence of the video footage which shows Ms Saunders was knowingly endeavouring to mislead the court and that, when shown to be lying, changed her account. It is this desire to mislead which has pervaded this whole case. Darren Honeywill was undoubtedly very agitated. His anger was in the context that an older individual in the lodges who was on two crutches and recovering from hip surgery had been ran at by Ms Saunders in her very large and powerful car. Five days before, Darren Honeywill had been ran at on a road he was entitled to be on by Ms Saunders causing him to have to jump into bushes on her land in order to avoid her. He approached Mr Verdier and Ms Saunders who were on the grass acting as if nothing had happened. I can surmise that Mr Verdier had made some tea and was bringing one for Ms Saunders and, in his fury, Darren Honeywill took a cup and threw it on the floor, not splashing or touching anyone. Other than the bad language, this was a nothing incident, but Ms Saunders plainly saw it as an opportunity to bring another false allegation, alleging that Mr Honeywill had committed an assault by throwing tea over her.

It is difficult to see what can be said to justify valuable court time being taken up by this nonsense. Ms Saunders did not resile from her allegation when in court, instead she told further lies to try to excuse herself. Only in counsel’s closing submissions does she withdraw the allegation. The importance of this incident is that it proves how Ms Saunders operates and why her behaviour causes such distress to the individual defendants who have simply been endeavouring to get on with their lives.

It is further alleged against Darren Honeywill that he lives permanently at 12 Abbotsley Country Homes. I am satisfied that he does not. Lodge 12 is owned by his mother and father, Kim and Lance Honeywill. They both live in France and have a property in Suffolk. I am satisfied that Darren Honeywill also does not use the lodge as his permanent or principal residence. Sadly, for him and his family, Darren suffers from a bi-polar disorder and struggles with his mental health. He first went to stay at Abbotsley Country Homes in order to get away from the stress of being around other people and in order to recover from depression. There is nothing in the lease preventing Darren Honeywill from using his parents’ property as a place to recuperate. For a short period of time he gained some limited work in his trade as a tiler, however to do that work leaving from lodge 12 was contrary to the terms of the lease and he gave up that work immediately as neither he nor his parents wished to cause any difficulties. He now lives an itinerant lifestyle between the lodge, his parents’ home in Suffolk and his aunt’s home in Huntingdon. I accept that he does not have one fixed location where he stays. The lodge is convenient to him as a place where he can stay with his children, for whom he has co-parenting responsibilities, when they are with him which is usually every other weekend. This is proper use of the lodge in accordance with the terms of the lease and the planning permission.

Mr Steele, with his wife Jennifer, own the lodge at 17 Abbotsley Country Homes. They purchased the lodge in 2018 and Mr Steele described it as being the saddest day when they moved in. He accepts that they live in the lodge for an average of 28 to 32 weeks in every year but spend the rest of their time in their motor home in Spain, or travelling in Portugal. Like many of the others who live at the lodges, they do not consider themselves to have a permanent home and they live an itinerant lifestyle. In addition to being in Spain, Portugal and at Abbotsley, Mr and Mrs Steele spend time travelling around the British countryside. They are registered to vote at Abbotsley and they pay council tax on the Lodge. They receive the winter fuel allowance, but that only requires residence in the UK for one particular day. They have bank accounts, their UK driving licence and UK vehicle registered at Abbotsley and their utilities for Abbotsley are registered at Abbotsley. None of that is surprising, given that they are UK residents, but it does not mean that they are occupying the lodge in breach of planning conditions. They are aware that planning permission requires the lodge to be used only as holiday accommodation and Mr Steele says that they abide by that. Certainly, there is no evidence that Huntingdon District Council are concerned about any planning breaches and Mr Steele said that their conveyancing solicitor had made it clear that they were to occupy the lodge as holiday accommodation and that they needed to vacate for one month a year. Prior to Brexit, Mr and Mrs Steele said that they were away for six months a year and that he was in holiday when away from the lodge and on holiday when in the lodge at Abbotsley Country Homes. While it was put to him in cross examination that he could not be on holiday the whole time just because he was retired, he said that he believed he was on holiday the whole time and that Abbotsley is a holiday home for him and his wife.

Because of the covid pandemic, Mr and Mrs Steele were told to leave Spain prior to when there was a lockdown in the UK. There were therefore in the lodge when the lockdown was announced and, for the reasons I have set out elsewhere in this judgment, they were obliged to remain in occupation of the lodge.

Mr Steele confirmed that he and his wife gave their alternative address as soon as they purchased the lodge and that since Pheasantland has been their landlord they have been regularly reminded of the requirement not to live in the property as permanent residence and have been supplied with the estate manual. Mr Steele said he is aware of his obligations of occupancy and I am not satisfied that he has breached those terms as is alleged by Ms Saunders. The initial address given by Mr Steele when they first purchased a lodge at Abbotsley Country Homes was 45 Warwick Street, Grangetown, Cardiff. It was the property that they were planning to purchase but ended up not doing so. Once that purchase fell through they provided the address of the mobile home location in Spain.

There are no allegations of trespass made against Mrs Steele and I therefore do not need to deal with that. Mr Steele accepts that he has entered onto the land at Abbotsley on various occasions in July 2022 for the purpose of restoring the water supply to the “chalet land” in furtherance of the permission granted by Pheasantland to the owners and occupiers of the lodges so that Pheasantland could abide by its obligations under the lease to maintain and repair conduits. Mr Steele recalls a conference call in or about March 2019 when all residents were asked to get together to maintain the conduits. Had Ms Saunders not taken it upon herself to interfere with the supply and flow of water then he, and others in the lodges, needed to go onto the Abbotsley land. He also accepts being part of a group who, on 11 September 2022, filled in the trench which had left the blue water pipe exposed. Again, this was under the authority of Pheasantland who had an obligation to maintain the pipe. While the chances of a heavy frost in September might be limited, it is correct that the winter would be coming in a few months.

Mr Steele accepts that he did say about Jenny Wisson’s water supply “Well let’s see how the fucking 92 year old mother likes being without water.” This was, in my judgment, a threat without substance. Mr Steele was in his late 70s at the time this was said and was distressed that his, and the water of others who owned the wooden lodges, had their water cut off by the actions of Ms Saunders and those she instructed. Many affected were elderly, some over the age of 80 and some were in very poor health. His anger and frustration as a consequence of the aggravation being suffered because of Ms Saunder’s behaviour spilled out into making the point that in the same way as the people on the “chalet land” had been impacted, Ms Wisson’s elderly mother would not like to be without water. As I have said elsewhere in this judgment,. it does appear that Ms Saunders understands just how unacceptable it is to deny water from an elderly and vulnerable individual, but at the same time she was doing just that – not once, but on multiple occasions, including for a period of 10 days when there was a red heat warning. While Mr Steele’s comments cannot be condoned in any way, these were words. Ms Saunders actually denied water to elderly and vulnerable people.

A further allegation made by Ms Saunders is that Mr Steele trespassed on the Jenny Wisson wood and dumped garden waste. There was no trespass. The Jenny Wisson wood is open to the public. There was no “garden waste” and Mr Steele does not have his own garden. All that he was doing, and I accept his evidence on this, was to collect the leaves from the wood and put them back into the wood. As Ms Saunders has accepted that she does not proceed with allegations of trespass in this case, this allegation is formally dismissed. Had she not withdrawn the allegation it would have been dismissed been made out in any event.

Mr Steele said that he and his wife had raised a complaint to the police and were interviewed by the police as a consequence of the water being cut off in mid-July 2022. He said that he and his wife had suffered some abuse from Ms Saunders when out walking, including that they should “fuck off back to Wales” While such a comment is in keeping with Ms Saunders behaviour to others (including to Mr Verdier) and the way that I have seen her behave on dashcam footage, this was not a matter included in Mr Steele’s statement and not put to Ms Saunders for her to respond to. In the circumstances I make no finding on it.

Valerie Holliman is the owner of lodge 22, Abbotsley Country Homes. She purchased the lodge in September 2015. She purchased lodge 22 in order to have a property in England as her principal home is in France, which she purchased in July 2015. It was, as she puts it, a “lock up and leave” property and, having seen the lodge land, I can fully appreciate the sense that the lodge would create a quiet, tranquil and private holiday property which could be left securely, with other lodges nearby. Her partner is Colm.

France is Ms Holliman’s primary residence, she pays an annual taxe fonciere and it is where she lived for the majority for the majority of time, before covid and before the impact of Brexit. Ms Holliman said that, for example, they spent 9 months in France in 2019. She is on the electoral roll at Abbotsley, as it is her only property in the UK and she is resident in the property when not at her main or principal property in France. There is a legal obligation to register at a property at which you are resident – hence why students are obliged to register both at home and at their residence where studying, even though it is not legal to vote more than once. It is not surprising that Ms Holliman has the address for her UK bank account at Abbotsley, her utilities at Abbotsley, her UK driving licence and the registration of her UK car, her UK doctor and dentist are all registered at Abbotsley. She does not have another property in the UK. Without the constraints created by Brexit, and this case, she made it clear that she would be spending even more in France than she does. Her pension is paid into her bank account along with her winter fuel allowance but, just as with the other lodge owners, that payment is made because of being in the UK for a day in a particular week in September. I am satisfied that Ms Holliman and her partner Colm do not reside at their lodge at 22 Abbotsley other than as their holiday accommodation. As is set out in the letter from Huntingdonshire District Council to Mark Chatfield of PI Estates Limited dated 15 October 2012 “there is no limit on the time people can spend at a lodge provided that they are using it as holiday accommodation.”

Ms Holliman was in her lodge at Abbotsley when the covid lockdown was announced in March 2020. The regulations expressly provided that, during the emergency period, no person was entitled to leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse and so Ms Holliman could not leave her lodge. Even if, as Ms Saunders contends, she should not have continued to reside there as it was not her primary or principal home, there was actually nothing that could be done as the lockdown meant that there was no way in which either Ms Holliman or Colm could have travelled back to their property in France. It is difficult to understand what Ms Saunders was expecting people to do in the lockdown. It sadly appears that this was another occasion in which Ms Saunders had a view as to what should happen and there was therefore, in her mind, no possibility of an alternative perspective or that she could be wrong.

Like the other owners of lodges at Abbotsley Homes, Ms Holliman has found herself locked into staying at the property more than she would wish as a consequence of the behaviour of Ms Saunders but has found that her time there is nothing like the peaceful and quiet atmosphere that she bought into. She now has had to take sleeping tablets and is plainly very distressed, both for her own situation but also in empathy with the difficulties of other lodge owners. I am satisfied that Ms Holliman understands her obligations pursuant to the underlease and that she complies with those restrictions.

The allegations made by Ms Saunders against Ms Holliman are that “on occasions too numerous to particularise” she has trespassed on the Abbotsley land by entering the sheep field; that between 14 to 28 August 2022 she trespassed on the Abbotsley land by entering the car park of the Jenny Wisson Woodland and was “seen” to attempt to pull aside the barrier and the gate; that “on occasions too numerous to particularise” she has left public footpaths and walked with her dog on Abbotsley land and has let her dog loose even when there are sheep on the field; that she has participated in unpleasant Facebook comments.

Ms Holliman denied going into the sheep field explaining that it is completely enclosed by fencing with no access gate or stile and with fencing in excess of three feet. Ms Holliman is only 5 feet 4 inches and, at the time of her defence, she was 73. She is now 75 and even though in apparent good physical health, having seen the sheep field on my site visit I cannot see how she could possibly go into the sheep field as alleged. I find this allegation to be untrue. As Ms Saunders has wrongfully barred the way into the Jenny Wisson Wood, which is the only other way in which the sheep field could be accessed. With respect to the Jenny Wisson Wood, Ms Saunders again makes the false assertion in her witness statement dated 1 December 2022 that the section 106 agreement she entered into for the purpose of obtaining planning permission for the construction of the lodges for her own financial advantage, expired in 1999. I am not entirely sure why it is that she believes that she could still have planning permission, carry out preliminary works with respect to that planning permission and sell on the land to Luddington with the benefit of that planning permission, but at the same time avoid the planning gain which was a pre-requisite of obtaining the planning permission and the financial advantages that gave her. I do not accept that any activity gaining entry to the Jenny Wisson Wood, which had been denied to her, could possibly amount to a trespass as the wood is to be open to the public. Ms Saunders has, in any event, decided not to proceed with allegations of trespass against Ms Holliman in the Jenny Wisson wood and those allegations are all dismissed.

Ms Holliman was clear that she does use footpaths 10 and 11 for walking and exercising her dog. I have no evidence to support those footpaths having been stopped or diverted and, in so far as those footpaths do not join up, Ms Holliman connects them by walking over the farmer’s land – for which she has permission from the farmer. I do not find that she has wandered off the footpath or allowed her dog to wander. Insofar as there is a conflict between the evidence of Ms Holliman and Ms Saunders, I accept the evidence of Ms Holliman who I found to be a totally honest and straightforward witness who, like the other lodge owners, has been dragged into this litigation which is entirely outside the control and, to an extent, comprehension of Ms Holliman.

With respect to the allegation that Ms Holliman made “unpleasant Facebook comments about me in tandem with another of the mobile home owners”, I assuming that the reference to “mobile home owners” is a reference to the Norwegian log homes. It is a difficult allegation to understand as Ms Saunders does not identify who she says made an unpleasant comment or what it was. Sensibly the allegation has been withdrawn by Ms Saunders as it is an inadequately pleaded allegation. With respect to the complaint about the Community Protection Notice, this was issued by the police against Ms Saunders as a consequence of her cutting off the water without notice or justification. Ms Holliman, alongside many other of the lodge owners, gave a statement to the police when asked to do so. There cannot be any proper complaint about responding to police enquiries.

Like other owners of the lodges, Ms Holliman cannot understand why Ms Saunders has decided, after the many years during which she charged the lodge owners for the supply of water, that the supply of water is a trespass and that they have been “purloining” the water. In my judgment, Ms Saunders is punishing the owners and occupiers of the lodges by cutting off their water supply completely as they won’t agree with her. Ms Holliman has described just how difficult it is for her to be at Abbotsley, that it is not the place where she feels happiest, that “the accusations and the proceedings regarding this claim has caused me nothing but stress and are seriously affecting not only my mental health but also my physical health.” She says that she has been suffering with depression and insomnia, that she cannot sleep and is often breaking down in tears when everything overwhelms her. I witnessed in court how difficult Ms Holliman found the situation to be on various occasions. Ms Holliman was a successful actress and, as such, I can again take judicial notice of the fact that she would needed to have had a robust personality and would have been used to dealing with things not working out quite as she wanted. It is clear to me that this litigation has brought her very low. She describes how Ms Saunders managed to turn what was a “happy peaceful environment” into a “living hell”. She stated that she does not consider Ms Saunders’ behaviour to be the behaviour of a sane person: “Who would deprive a whole community of mainly elderly residents of water for 10 days in the middle of a heatwave when temperatures reached a record breaking 40 degrees? Not only cruel and spiteful but dangerous.”

The fourteenth defendant, Colm, was accused of five acts of trespass and harassment, including one act of an alleged serious assault on Robert Verdier. Colm is the partner of Valerie Holliman, “the love of his life”, who is the registered owner of lodge 22. The allegation that Colm assaulted Mr Verdier is supported by a photograph provided by Ms Saunders with a sub-heading stating “This is the photo of Robert Verdier after being head butted by Colm and having his nose and ribs broken.” Mr Verdier does not look in a good way and he appears to have a “black eye” showing bruising all around his left eye and some bruising to his right eye and a cut to the top of his nose. Having asked for sight of any medical evidence to support the contention that he had a broken nose and broken ribs Ms Saunders instructed her counsel that Mr Verdier did not have any such medical evidence and I have therefore asked for an explanation as to where the information has come from that his nose and ribs were broken. Colm accepts that an incident did take place involving Mr Verdier. The allegation is that this happened on 2 June 2022, and Colm says that Mr Verdier came to his door banging on it and when opened Mr Verdier was very aggressive which caused Colm to shut the door on him which caught him on the nose and knocked him to the ground. Colm says that he picked Mr Verdier up and put him on a chair the front decking to lodge 22 where he stayed for about 4 hours drinking tea and eating biscuits. The complaint by Mr Verdier was not made until a number of months later, and when investigated by the police the decision was made to take no further action. I accept that Mr Verdier suffered from black eyes, but without any evidence to substantiate it, not the broken nose or broken ribs. It is another exaggeration, consistent with the other allegations that have been made. While the court does not, of course, condone any act of violence from anyone in these proceedings, I am satisfied that this was a genuine accident when Colm was too aggressive with the shutting of his door causing the injury to the face. The allegation of the broken ribs make no sense and Mr Verdier would have been in no position to sit on the decking for four hours if he had suffered from broken ribs and a broken nose. It appears that Mr Verdier accepted Colm’s attempt to make the peace and that Ms Saunders has seized upon this incident to try to bolster her case.

Colm’s evidence is that the lodge had been purchased by Ms Holliman to provide a second home in the UK when they were not in France and for her children and grandchildren to use when they were in Fance. Up until the covid lockdown in 2020, he said that the lodge was not occupied for more than three months in any year. Colm’s experience of Ms Saunders was not pleasant. His account of his engagement with Ms Saunders is remarkably similar to that of other witnesses. He said that he first encountered her was when he and Ms Holliman had been for a walk with their dog when they were using a public footpath across her land. He said that she asked them personal questions and that when they refused to tell her where they lived she returned to her car using foul and abusive language. That account is supported by Ms Holliman. Having seen footage of the way in which Ms Saunders behaves even when she knows that she is being recorded, I accept Ms Holliman and Colm’s account as being entirely credible. The allegation of trespass made by Ms Saunders on 16 February 2022 is totally discredited by the fact that Colm that he was elsewhere on the day, and this allegation is dismissed upon Ms Saunders withdrawal of the allegation. I accept Colm’s account that he was not trespassing on 7 July 2022. Ms Saunders suggests that his trespassing was seen by Joe Jefferies and Simon Jefferies, even though they do not mention this in their own statements. It is very clear that this allegation has no substance and has been made up by Ms Saunders.

Colm said that his next encounter with Ms Saunders was when he had hired a van in order to move some furniture to France, where he lives, but that the van had broken down in the layby. Colm says that he had contacted the hire company to come to rescue him but that Ms Saunders was utterly unreasonable and very aggressive in her behaviour to him about why he had the van and what he was doing with it. In her statement she suggests that he was being aggressive and shouted “You don’t own the fucking road; we’ve checked. There’s nothing you can fucking do about it.” He said that what he actually said was “what the fuck is it to you” as she would not accept his explanation that he had simply broken down.

The allegation that Colm had been “screaming at Vivien” at 3.30am one morning is included in the second statement of Mr Verdier dated 25 March 2025 which cannot be relied upon because of the way in which it was obtained: Mr Verdier himself said he signed it without knowing what he had signed, and Ms Saunders suggested through her Counsel that Mr Verdier suffers from dementia. I have not seen any crime number or police report with respect to this matter (which includes allegations of threats and criminal damage), although as is clear from the incident involving Mr Verdier, matters such as this would be reported to the police. The incident makes little sense in any event because Ms Saunders has said in her statement dated 1 December 2022 that she had used her remote to open the gate. She realised she had to say that as it would otherwise have been impossible to make good the allegation that he was, with “others”, in the grounds of her house. She said that she opened the gates “not realising it was early” even though the incident allegedly took place at 3.25am/3.30am when it would have still have been pitch dark, the sun not rising until 5am. What makes it even more unbelievable is the allegation that Darren Honeywill was with Colm, intoxicated. Darren Honeywill explained to the court that as a consequence of his bi-polar disorder he has not had alcohol for 15 years. I believe him. I do not believe Ms Saunders. It is clear that she has her house covered with CCTV cameras and ring doorbell devices. It is impossible to believe that she would not have lighting for those automatic cameras, as is usual for Ring doorbell cameras. Had there been intruders, they would have been captured on camera. I have no hesitation in finding that this allegation is totally untrue. Colm’s view is that she makes up these allegations because she is a liar and a fantasist. Ms Saunders seeks to place reliance upon Ms Melesi’s account in her email to the directors of Pheasantland dated 17 July 2022 where she refers to the account Ms Saunders gave her that she had been “woken up at 3am by Colm and a couple of others who rang her bell and abused her. A window in her hotel has been smashed” and that “…Colm punched Robert in the face – this is frankly cave man style.” This does not help Ms Saunders at all. It is only a record of what Ms Melesi had been told by Ms Saunders, which Ms Melesi is merely repeating. Within 4 ½ months of this, Ms Saunders was describing Ms Melesi as “a real danger. I háve no doubt she would persuade others to harm me”.

The consequence of Ms Saunders behaviour has been devastating to Colm as it has with many of the others. As he set out in evidence when asked about his occupation, he said he lives and works in France but that because Ms Saunders turned the water off and the behaviour of Ms Saunders he is not willing to leave Ms Holliman there on her own and they are unable to sell the lodge and that they are “on our knees financially, emotionally, physically.” It is clear to me that Colm does not live at lodge 22 as his main or principal home and that it is holiday accommodation.

Ms Seiler, who is now aged 87, and was 84 at the time the water was shut off in 2022, has a property in Spain that she has owned for 37 years and also owns lodge 19 at Abbotsley Country Homes. She said that she has owned the property in Spain for the past 37 years. Her husband is sadly now dead and so she said that she lives in Spain, travels, and spends time in Abbotsley. She accepted that she receives a UK pension and, subject to its availability, the winter fuel allowance. She is registered for council tax and is on the electoral roll, and she is registered with a doctor local to Abbotsley. She also has a doctor in Spain. Prior to the death of her husband and the effects of Brexit, she said that they would spend about 6 months of the year in Spain together with 3 months in Australia with their son. She now spends about 7 months of the year in Abbotsley and considers it to be her holiday home where she relaxes. She denied it being her permanent accommodation as she sees Spain as her home and she travels a lot.

With respect to Ms Seiler’s occupation of the lodge during the Covid lockdown in 2020 and beyond, Ms Sellier said it was fantastic to be in Abbotsley because she could walk 5km along a circular walk around the footpaths and would walk with Ms Melesi and her corgi dog. That is now not possible, and she described being at Abbotsley Country Homes as “hell”. She said that she could not believe that one person could cause so much distress to so many people. She said it has got so bad that “I didn’t want to be here anymore…I don’t mean just here, I didn’t want to be here at all…about 2 years ago it’s the first time I went to the doctor and explained what had happened.” Ms Seiler was very distressed giving this evidence and it was obvious to all in court just how difficult it has been for her through this period.

I am satisfied that 19 Abbotsley Country Homes is occupied by Ms Seiler as holiday accommodation and that she is not occupying the property as her permanent accommodation. The burden falls upon Ms Saunders to establish on the balance of probabilities that this is Ms Seiler’s permanent accommodation. Her evidence is limited to the fact that 19 Abbotsley Country Homes is given as Ms Seiler’s address on the official copies of the property: that is not unusual for a person with more than one property. That she spends 7 months of every year in Abbotsley subsequent to the death of her husband and as a consequence of Brexit: that does not alone make it her permanent residence or more than a holiday home, she consider it to be her holiday home as her permanent residence is in Spain, it is simply that she spends longer time in Abbotsley now given her changed circumstances. Her pension and her winter fuel allowance go to her bank account and are not proof of her being resident at Abbotsley as her permanent or non-holiday home; she is on the electoral roll at Abbotsley because she resides part of the year in the UK and Abbotsley is her property in the UK; her doctor is near Abbotsley, but given her age it is not surprising she is registered with a doctor and in the months that she is in the UK it is to be expected that the doctor would be near where she stays; Council tax is for a residence as the property is a residence. With respect to her occupation during the covid lockdown period, that was entirely proper and in accordance with the covid regulations. I have dealt with this elsewhere and will not repeat here.

I am satisfied that Ms Seiler is not seeking to mislead the court when she says that 19 Abbotsley Country Homes is not her permanent residence. She was a straightforward and honest witness. Ms Saunders’ own belief that Ms Seiler lives at 19 Abbotsley Country Homes as her permanent home is not made out. The letter dated 10 March 2020 to Anglian Water with respect to occupation of the properties, which Ms Saunders seeks to rely upon, was written for the purpose of seeking to obtain an alternative supply of water when Ms Saunders was cutting off their supply whenever it suited them. It does not provide evidence that Ms Seiler was in fact living in lodge 19 as her permanent home.

Ms Saunders brought four allegations which were all answered by Ms Seiler. Ms Saunders abandoned three of those allegations when Ms Seiler commenced giving evidence and proceeded only with respect to one – namely that Ms Seiler was on Abbotsley land on 25 July 2022. This was the date on which some of the owners of lodges, who had been without water for ten days after the supply had been cut off by Ms Saunders, entered the land for the purpose of restoring the supply of water. The temperatures at that time were in the high 30 degrees Celsius. During the period the water had been cut off by Ms Saunders, a red weather warning had been because of the unprecedented heatwave indicating a risk to life, not just for vulnerable groups (which included some who stay at Abbotsley Country Homes who are elderly and/or suffering ill health) but also for the general population. The red warning urged people to take precautions such as staying hydrated, avoiding travel and keeping cool. Cutting off the water and then suggesting that the occupiers should either move or buy water from supermarkets was plainly placing people in unnecessary danger. I have concluded that the only motivation for Ms Saunders for deliberately cutting off the water at that time is that she wanted to get her own way, regardless of whether she was correct or not, and that she either entirely lacks empathy was oblivious to the suffering she was causing or was deliberately causing suffering in an attempt to force the owners of the lodges to act against Pheasantland.

Ms Seiler in her closing submissions said that, while she was pleased that three of the four allegations made by Ms Saunders had been withdrawn by her, she was angry and upset that those false allegations had been made against her and were kept “hanging over her head” until she gave her own evidence. I agree that it is not appropriate to make spurious allegations and then withdraw them at the last moment. It is an indication that Ms Saunders was using the litigation for the purpose of intimidating the individual lodge owners.

Ms Seiler was also asked questions by Ms Holliman and gave evidence about the situation on 2 December 2019 when the water had first been cut off been cut off. On that occasion Ms Seiler and Ms Holliman went together to Ms Saunders’ house in order to see if the water had been cut off and Ms Saunders said that she did not have water either. Ms Seiler said that Ms Saunders phoned Mr Jefferies and referred to Mr Walker as “that prick” which she said was the first time she had heard Ms Saunders use this sort of language. From Ms Seiler’s account it appears that some Anglian Water engineers attended on 3 December 2019 and that the water came back on without any work being carried out by them, which made it look like the water had been deliberately turned off and then was turned back on. Mr Lawrence Honeywill asked her about the occasion on 22 January 2022 when he came across Ms Seiler on the farm track distressed and crying when the water was cut off on that particular occasion. Ms Seiler confirmed that incident and that gives important context to Mr Laurence Honeywill’s behaviour that morning.

Mr Brennan is the owner of lodge 2, Abbotsley Country Homes with his wife Irene. They purchased the lodge on 26 July 2013. Unfortunately, due to serious ill-health he was not able to give evidence. He was well enough to give a final submission to the court but I take into account the fact that the claimants were not able to cross examine him on his evidence.

I am satisfied that Mr and Mrs Brennan do not occupy the lodge as their principal or permanent home because they spend 5 to 6 months in Spain and treat the lodge as a “lock up and leave” property. Ms Saunders has not established that Mr Brennan uses his lodge as his only or main home. No complaints were against Mr Brennan and so he applied to be joined to the proceedings in order that he could make an application for a vesting order, should the same be necessary.

Carol Berwick owns lodge 15, Abbotsley Country Homes. She is understandably very concerned that she purchased her lodge on 28 September 2022 without, she says, notification from her vendors with respect to the ongoing water dispute and the fact that Ms Saunders had been cutting off the water supply to the lodges before then. The first she knew of any problem was a letter she received dated 15 October 2022. She is also concerned with respect to the position of Huntingdonshire DC given that, on the basis of Ms Saunders’ contentions, they have all purchased properties without the basic and necessary service of water. It is not for me, in the context of this litigation, to make any comment about the potential of other claims being brought against third parties by Ms Berwick. Ms Berwick applied to be joined into the proceedings in order to ensure that she is fully engaged in what is happening in this litigation and in order to seek a vesting order, if necessary.

The proceedings themselves were issued by Ms Saunders on 3 December 2022, 65 days after the purchase of lodge 15. In those circumstances, it cannot be properly said that Ms Berwick was in breach of any of the terms of her lease prior to the issuing of the proceedings. Despite this, Ms Berwick (along with other lodge owners) has had her life taken over by this litigation. In her closing submissions she has said that she has been taking sleeping tablets as a result of her inability to sleep and that her state of health and peace of mind has been affected, not least by the way in which Ms Saunders continually reminds the individual lodge owners about the litigation, including by sending emails on Boxing Day and New Year’s Day. Ms Berwick refers to it as the “deliberate drip-drip of reminders”.

As is clear from the wording of the lease for lodge 15, the first covenant contained in the First Schedule setting out restrictions imposed in respect of the Plot and the Lodge is:

“Not to occupy the Lodge for more than 11 months in each and every calendar year (it being acknowledged that the Lessee will ensure that the Lodge is vacated from time to time for a minimum period of one month in each year) nor permit the same to be used for permanent residential accommodation but solely as holiday accommodation.”

Ms Berwick’s evidence is that she used to live at 37 Gordon Road, St Neots, Cambridgeshire (“37 Gordon Road”). When she retired she made a decision that she wished to live in Cumbria, a place with which she has a deep connection, while retaining a holiday property in the St Neots area in order that she could, if needed, be close for her family. It is an entirely logical and sensible decision to have made. Her evidence is that her “nearest and dearest” are in Cumbria, that she has been walking in the Lake District since she was 15, her father’s ashes are scattered 8 miles from her home and her best friend lives in the next village. She wishes to retain a “lock up and leave” property near St Neots and that Abbotsley Country Homes had the “holiday vibe” she was looking for. Ms Berwick sold her home in 37 Gordon Road and used the proceeds of the sale of that property to buy her home in Cumbria and the lodge at Abbotsley Country Homes. As Ms Berwick says, had she wanted to have a main home in or near to St Neots she would have just remained at 37 Gordon Road without needing to expend the monies on SDLT or conveyancing and moving costs.

Insofar as it is alleged that she has 15 Abbotsley Country Homes as her main or principal home and the property at 3 James Street, Cleator Moor, Cumbria (“3 James Street”) as her holiday home, that is not made out on the facts. She has been staying in 15, Abbotsley Homes while undertaking renovation works on the 3 James Street property, which is a traditional tile and brick property. Mrs Berwick spends time between her two properties and also takes additional short holidays elsewhere. Her evidence indicates that she spends more time at Abbotsley than in Cumbria, but that does not mean it is her principal home. Her obligation under the lease is that she is to occupy 15 Abbotsley Country Homes for not more than 11 months in a year and she plainly does not live at lodge 15 for more than 11 months a year.

Ms Saunders relies upon establishing that 15 Abbotsley Country Homes is Ms Berwick’s permanent home by reason of the fact her Barclays Bank account is at lodge 15, that she has a car registered to the lodge, she has retained her doctor at St Neots - who Ms Berwick says she has been registered with for the past 30 years and who she wishes to stay with and would rather convalesce at her second home if she did need any medical treatment which required a period of convalescence. With respect to utility bills, those for 3 James Street are at 3 James Street, whereas the utility bills at 15 Abbotsley Country Homes are registered there. She pays council tax for both 3 James Street and 15 Abbotsley Home. Given that the lease allows for someone to reside at 15 Abbotsley Lodge as a holiday property for anything up to 11 months of the year, it is entirely consistent that someone would have council tax, bank accounts and health services.

Ms Berwick’s occupation is for less than 11 months per year and, when she is in 15 Abbotsley Lodge, she is enjoying an extended period of relaxation and rest – including exercising her three dogs and her engagement with game shooting. This is plainly not Ms Berwick’s permanent residential accommodation as she lives at 3 James Street, Cumbria which she has been restoring and renovating. She does not live at 15 Abbotsley for anything like 11 months in a calendar year and when she is there she is using it as “holiday accommodation” given the way in which she makes use of it. While Ms Saunders, as with all other aspects of this litigation, is convinced about the correctness of her own position and believes that she can impose her own views of what a “holiday” is upon others, the firmness of own views does not mean she is necessarily correct. It appears that Ms Saunders may have been gathering evidence from Mr Verdier, but that evidence I have found to be inherently unreliable, and he was clearly wrong when he was informing Ms Saunders that Ms Berwick was working part time in a dog exercising centre. Ms Berwick has commented in her closing submissions that the observations being made by Mr Verdier are intrusive and she is concerned that Ms Saunders is carrying out surveillance upon her, and others. This may be a well held suspicion. Of course, there are steps that could be taken with respect to such behaviour (if it is being undertaken) but it is not something that I can deal with without an appropriate application

I am satisfied that Ms Berwick is an entirely honest and straightforward witness and that she would not be seeking to mislead the court. She has informed me that 15 Abbotsley Country Homes is holiday accommodation and not her permanent residential accommodation. Her evidence supports her position and Ms Saunders’ evidence does not undermine her position in any way. Insofar as Mr Verdier’s evidence is relied upon by Ms Saunders, for the reasons I set out when dealing with his evidence, I do not accept it in any way – not only because he is inherently unreliable, but also because of Ms Saunders’ own involvement in the drafting of his second witness statement.

I accept Ms Berwick’s evidence that 15 Abbotsley Country Homes is used as holiday accommodation and that there is no breach of this restriction. I further find that Ms Berwick properly entered into a deed of covenant with respect to lodge 15 when she completed on her purchase. Ms Saunders is wrong to suggest that Ms Berwick “failed to enter into a deed of covenant”. She did. These allegations against Ms Berwick are unfounded and I do not find her to be in breach of her lease and there is no basis for Ms Saunders to rely upon Ms Berwick as providing evidence for a breach entitling her to forfeit the headlease.

Ann McDermott, together with her husband Owen, purchased Lodge 1, Abbotsley Country Homes, in or about 2007. The McDermotts are now respectively aged 87 and 84 years and both unfortunately have a number of health issues. Owen McDermott is sadly not well enough to give evidence to the court. His evidence is in the form of a witness statement confirming the evidence of wife. The statement of Owen McDermott is not accepted by Ms Saunders, but then neither is the oral evidence of Ann McDermott. Despite everything that was said by Ann McDermott about where they lived and the way that they spent their time, Ms Saunders is convinced in her own mind that 1, Abbotsley Country Homes is their principal home and she will not countenance otherwise.

Ann McDermott is now living with her husband at 163 Wingate Square, Clapham Common, London SW4 0AN (“163 Wingate Square”) and gave her evidence from there by a CVP link. 163 Wingate Square was purchased by them in or about June/July 2023 as they could no longer cope with the steps at their former residence at Rectory Grove. I am satisfied that Wingate Square is now the home of Ann and Owen McDermott and that previously they were living with daughter and son-in-law and their grandchildren at 1 Rectory Grove, Clapham and before that they lived at Marney Road. It is incorrect to suggest that they did not have another home when Lodge 1 was purchased by them.

Abbotsley Country Homes had been purchased off plan in or about 2007. The McDermotts had simply bought a lodge that was set up like the show house, the show house now being known as 2 Abbotsley Lodge. Ann McDermott explained how they had wanted somewhere they could go to in the countryside and that they had seen a similar property to Abbotsley Country Homes in Lincolnshire but they were concerned it was too far away from their daughter and son-in-law in London. Their daughter and son-in-law purchased the property at 1 Rectory Grove in or about 2009 with a lot of money invested from Mr Owen and Mrs Ann McDermott and that is how they came to have a significant financial interest in Rectory Grove. Rectory Grove had previously been occupied as a squat and it took some time to remove the squatters, but when the property was recovered and restored, Mr and Mrs McDermott had their own room and designated space and their own furniture, and they were financially invested in Rectory Grove. Most significantly, they were invested because of their commitment to their grandchildren and assisting with their care when both their daughter, a very successful lawyer, and their son-in-law, a professor, needed child-care support.

Having listened with care to what was said by Ann McDermott I am satisfied that this was not, as Counsel endeavoured to categorise, a loose arrangement whereby Mrs McDermott would assist from time to time as an interested grandmother. She was an intrinsic part of the family, staying an average of three nights a week every fortnight or longer if needed and during school holidays or when they were ill.

Owen McDermott was a keen golfer but would go down to London to join his wife once he had finished his golfing, a match taking place once a month or every 6 weeks. He too was living at Rectory Grove and only living in Abbotsley Country Homes as a holiday property or a place to relax when there was a golf course operating. It is not surprising that he put his address as 1 Abbotsley Country Homes in the circumstances that was where he was carrying out his golfing.

It is clear to me that, before all the difficulties were caused at Abbotsley Country Homes by Ms Saunders’ behaviour, Mr and Mrs McDermott enjoyed being on holiday at their holiday home. It was somewhere that they used to enjoy their leisure time. Ms Saunders relies upon Mr McDermott being a full-time member as evidence that his permanent home was at Abbotsley. I do not accept that argument carries any weight. He plainly enjoyed playing golf at Abbotsley, before the course was vandalised and its repair mismanaged so that it had to close down. During the time he was able to enjoy time at Abbotsley and his recreation of golf, he properly made himself a full member of the golf club. Maybe he could have made himself a country member but that is simply to the advantage of the golf course. Certainly, Ms Saunders did not point out to him that (1) he could not be a full member as he was not allowed to live at the lodge for sufficient time to make him a full member; (2) that he should be paying less. It appears to be a change of position on the part of Ms Saunders.

Both Ann and Owen McDermott have suffered from ill health. Ann McDermott underwent knee surgery at Hinchingbrooke Hospital. Unfortunately, that was not successful and she had to have the surgery repeated but she then was given a hospital infection which resulted her in spending 10 weeks in hospital, after which she spent a further month at Charing Cross Hospital. She was then allowed to return to their home in Rectory Grove and was under the care of the Clapham district nurses and visiting the Charing Cross hospital twice a week. Ann McDermott said that the original surgery had been in Hinchingbrooke, but that she was registered with a GP both in London and in St. Neots long before this dispute commenced. Eventually, Ann McDermott was transferred to Addenbrookes Hospital in order that she could stay in Abbotsley for recuperation, the lodge being more suited to rest.

Owen McDermott has undergone chemotherapy treatment at Hinghingbrooke Hospital and had a pacemaker fitted at the Royal Papworth Hospital. Owen McDermott could not give oral evidence to the court, due to being unwell, but Ann McDermott accepted that he had attended various hospital appointments near to Abbotsley, but that he had also attended GP appointments in London.

Ann McDermott confirmed that she knew that 1 Abbotsley Lodge was not to be their permanent home and from the time that PI Estates Limited, and then Pheasantland Limited, became their intermediate landlord they have been asked to, and have, given details of their London address. Ann McDermott confirmed that they had been on the electoral roll both at Abbotsley, where they have a postal vote, and at their London address. She said that London was their primary address, first Rectory Grove and then 163 Wingate Square. She has looked at the Estate Manual and the lease and was clear and firm in her evidence. However many times she was asked the same question by Counsel for the claimant, she repeated that she was extremely clear that she did not see the lodge at Abbotsley as her primary address, it was not the primary home, that Rectory Grove had not been “just” a family home and her repeated answer “no, no, no” to the assertion that Rectory Grove was a holiday home and “no, we did not use Abbotsley as out main home” and “London is the primary address”, could not have been clearer.

The claimants accepted that Owen McDonald was too ill to give evidence. His statement merely confirmed the evidence of his wife and given the inability of the claimants to challenge in cross examination I give it limited weight.

Unfortunately, in keeping with the other owners of the lodges, the McDermotts have been locked into Abbotsley Country Homes by reason of this ongoing litigation and have not been able to sell their property, although I understand that they now do not stay at their lodge given the situation there and their own poor health.

I considered Ann McDermott’s evidence with great care. She was not seeking to mislead the court in anyway but was a thoroughly honest and straightforward witness. The difficulty for Ms Saunders is that, if she is convinced of something then she truly believes her view is correct and there is no possibility of an alternative. Mr and Mrs McDermott are plainly heavily invested and involved with their daughter and her family and I accept the evidence of Ann McDermott that their principal home was with them and that, even if they spent up to 8 months at the lodge, that was as holiday accommodation and not as their principal residence. Now they are not at Abbotsley or, if they are, it is rare. Even if, which I do not accept, I am wrong in coming to that conclusion and even if Ann McDermott is mistaken when she describes the way she and her husband live, and have lived, their lives, it is clear that is not an ongoing issue as they do not now come to Abbotsley as they are not well enough to do so and there is therefore no ongoing breach.

Simon Diffey purchased lodge 5, Abbotsley Country Homes in April 2015. His family home is in Bishops Stortford which is where his former wife lives and where he sees his three children. Mr Diffey does not generally live in the UK as his work keeps him abroad for about 9 months ever year and so, save for the difficulties caused by being locked down during covid, he was not in the country for more than about 3 months per year over a five year period. Some of the time in the UK was spent in his former matrimonial home and some at the lodge. He does not have a permanent address abroad because his work is based around particular projects that he is undertaking in the Pacific, South East Asia and Africa, although he did say that he had a permanent residence in Nairobi between 2013 and 2016.

He gave evidence that the property at Bishops Stortford is his address for business notifications and bill and is the resident address for his GP and his dentist. It an address which he owns and he continues to pay the mortgage. It is the address that he considered to his main property as he occupied it as his former matrimonial home, it where he sees his ex-wife and his children. It is plainly the property for which he feels the greatest connection as it was his family home and is still the home of his ex-wife and children. Mr Diffey said that he also had a property in Plymouth which he rented out while he was working abroad, but did return there after the Covid restrictions were lifted. The Plymouth property has now been sold.

It is clear that Mr Diffey, like other owners of lodges at Abbotsley Country Homes, moves from place to place. For Mr Diffey, it his work that keeps him from his lodge, but it is also clear that he has a life which involves him taking holidays in other places (including in Finland where his current partner lives) as well as spending part of his holiday time, the equivalent of his “shore leave” from his busy life working abroad, at Abbotsley. He described how he uses it to relax and rest between jobs abroad. His partner comes over from Finland and they sometimes holiday together at the lodge. He accepted that during the past year he has spent more time at Abbotsley, possibly 200 days, but that up to this time last year he had been working solidly abroad. He said that he is non-resident for the purpose of tax, although he would be declaring UK residency this year.

Mr Diffey said that prior to Pheasantland owning the intermediate lease he had not been aware of the need to give his principal address but that as soon as Pheasantland took over they asked for the address of his principal home and he has abided by that and also abided by the restrictions that the lodge his only to be used as a holiday home. He said that Pheasantland have provided reminders of occupancy restrictions by email and by provision of the estate manual. Mr Diffey said that Pheasantland manage the site very well and, to his understanding, Pheasantland exercise a degree of common sense and pragmatism but that they do pursue certain issues. Mr Diffey said that it was one of the reasons he decided to buy a lodge at Abbotsley Country Homes as he could see how well it was managed. Mr Diffey was asked about the people he would see on the site and it was clear from what he said that he would see some people (such as his immediate neighbours Mr and Mrs Blackall) but that, because he is away at work, and others are away at different times and he is not, as he put it, “connected locally”. He said he did not know everyone’s name and that the first time he had seen Ms Saunders was that day in court, when he was giving evidence. He did lead the community garden group and he would hear stories of allegations that sheds were too close to boundaries. He said that he did see Ms Melesi when she was at Abbotsley Country Homes.

Mr Diffey tried to assist, “to share the load”, by having contact with Anglian Water in May 2019, at a time when Ms Saunders was threatening to stop their supply of water. It is clear from the contents of that correspondence between Mr Diffey and Anglian Water and, from what was said by Mr Diffey, that the residents were being placed in a very precarious and vulnerable position with Ms Saunders threatening to cut off their water supply and with the lodge owners not knowing what they could do. It was a sensible step to take at that time, when the lodge owners were being placed in a situation where their water might be cut off as Ms Saunders was threatening, to ascertain what possible steps could be taken. Mr Diffey made it clear that everyone who had a lodge was involved and that it was a democratic process. Mr Diffey did not meet with or speak to Kevin Anstiss at Anglian Water. His recollection was that, from his discussions, that it was going to be very expensive as they all would have to put in their own meters and he recalled a figure of £100,000 being discussed as the amount required for a new water supply to Abbotsley Country Homes although he could not recall there being a precise quotation for the work.

Ms Saunders relies upon some correspondence between Mr Diffey and Mr Alan Walker with respect to the occupation of the lodges in early 2020 to support her claim that the properties were occupied as permanent homes rather than as holiday properties. It is clear that at this stage, under the pressure from Ms Saunders that she was going to cut off their water supply, the residents on the Abbotsley Country Homes land wanted to explore the possibility of obtaining an alternative water supply from Anglian Water. It appears that Anglian Water were saying that in order to supply water they needed to be satisfied that the principal use of the lodges was as a home and there was concern that the lodge owners could establish occupation to a level which would satisfy Anglian Water’s requirements. While there was a “sleight of hand” I can understand why the lodge owners, for the purpose of gaining another source of water, were willing to emphasise occupation of the lodges. The email from Mr Walker on 10 March 2020 at 19.08 to Mr Diffey indicates that the concern was whether they could not show it was the lodge owners principal home. Ms Saunders now seeks to use this email for the purpose of endeavouring to establish that lodge owners were living in the properties as their principal homes when they were having to emphasise their occupation in order to endeavour to get an alternative supply of water because of her threats to cut off their water. I do not consider that email, when considering all the evidence available, supports Ms Saunders’ case. The letter from Debenhams Ottaway to Anglian Water dated 10 March 2020 is plainly not correct with respect to Mr Diffey. He does not live at the lodge for 7 to 11 months, he only lives there for approximately 3 months a year, he considers it to be his holiday home and his main home is the home where he has responsibilities – for his children and for the mortgage, providing a home for his children and his ex-wife even though he does not live there because there is no room for him. It is a fact that those who live an itinerant life – either because of work, because of life style, because of family responsibilities, or simply because of choice – there is not going to be one home that can properly be described as the permanent home. As Mr Walker put it in his evidence, it is as much a state or mind as anything and Mr Diffey considered his home in Bishops Stortford to be his permanent home because of the connections with that property and the importance of that property to him. It is clear, that however it is looked at, objectively, Mr Diffey’s permanent or principal homes is not his lodge at Abbotsley Country Homes.

Robert Beatty gave evidence on behalf of Pheasantland with respect to the claim for forfeiture of the Pheasantland lease. He is the owner of lodge 8 at the Abbotsley Country Homes, which he purchased in 2008, but he lives at the Cambridge Gliding Club in a static caravan as part of his employment, and that he has lived there since 2007. He explained that his employers pay for his council tax at the Gliding Club, as part of his employment contract, and he is not on the electoral roll at Abbotsley Country Homes but has, for many years, been on the electoral roll at the Gliding Club.

As he lives at the Gliding Club, Mr Beatty has rented out his property to others on short tenancies of 3 months although he discovered in early 2023 that there were concerns being expressed by Mr Verdier, and then Pheasantland Limited, that Mr Verdier believed that his tenant at that time, a Mr Groenweld, was occupying the property not as holiday accommodation but that he was working from there. As a consequence Mr Beatty served notice on him to terminate his tenancy and possession of the property was recovered with Mr Groenweld vacating on 1 October 2023. Mr Beatty is not letting the lodge out now and Mr Groenweld is his last tenant. Mr Verdier, who does live permanently at lodge 10 with the consent of the second claimant, Ms Saunders, on her own part and as director of the first claimant, reported to Mr Beatty that Mr Groenwold was cycling to work from the lodge. To begin with Mr Beatty ignored the “rumour” from his neighbour Mr Verdier as there had been so many issues but that, while it had never been proved that he did go to work from the lodge, he decided it was safer to bring the tenancy to an end in order to ensure that he was complying with Pheasantland’s rules.

Mr Beatty said that his first tenant had been Mr Keith Blackall, who is the second defendant to these proceedings – with his wife as the third defendant. Mr Blackall now owns the property known as lodge 3, Abbotsley Country Homes. The first tenants occupied on 6 month tenancies but now he has an agent dealing with the letting of the property and the tenancy are three months, with a gap of a couple of weeks in between. It was confirmed by Mr Beatty that he had not let lodge 8 for a week or two but that he had been concerned to abide by the rules and that since Pheasantland had taken over the intermediate lease “there had been more t’s to cross and i’s to dot.”

I am very clear that Mr Beatty was very keen to ensure that he did not do anything to breach the terms of the lease. He had learnt, after he had left the premises, that Kenneth Harris, who had been a tenant at 8 Abbotsley Country Homes during 2017-2018, had been using the property as his business. Thereafter he had made sure that no-one was occupying the lodge outside the terms of the underlease.

He had received a letter from Pheasantland dated 7 February 2023 (which was in standard form to the owners of lodges located on Abbotsley Country Home) setting out that there was an alleged breach of the lease and that Pheasantland had received an allegation (so far without evidence) that you (or the current occupant) are occupying the lodge not as holiday or tourist accommodation but as permanent accommodation and that Pheasantland had the primary address on record but could he please let Mr Walker of Pheasantland know (i) if the allegation is correct; (ii) if so, how he proposed to remedy the breach, and (iii) how can it be proved to Abbotsley that the allegation is not correct. Mr Beatty responded by email on 12 February 2023 and then 15 March 2023, setting out that his current tenant would be out within 6 months, or 2 months if necessary, and that he has a permanent residence in the north of England. He had made it clear to his tenant that the property was a holiday let as he wanted to make sure every rule was adhered to and that he complied with the rules enforced by Pheasantland.

Mr Beatty instructed his agents, who “charged him a small fortune” in order that they could deal with these matters and he expected them to be dealing with matters in accordance with the requirements of the underlease. He said he left it to them and there is nothing in the evidence presented to me which indicates that they were not doing what was needed to ensure compliance with the underlease, or that the lodge was occupied contrary to the terms of the underlease.

Despite Mr Beatty’s evidence that he was on the electoral roll at the Gliding Club and that his employers paid Council Tax at that property as part of his employment, with him living in a static caravan on site as part of his employment, Ms Saunders declared that she thought that was untrue. She did not give any reasons as to why she did not believe Mr Beatty and I can only assume it is because her conduct indicates that she does not accept what is said by anyone who is not entirely supportive of her position. She says that she undertook an internet search which supported her in her view that council tax was not being paid for Mr Beatty at the Gliding Club and nothing on the internet to support that Mr Beatty was on the electoral roll. Of course, any such amateur sleuthing is only as good as the search engine or the input.

Consequently, being faced with the evidence of an individual who was entirely open and credible against a very questionable internet search by someone who has an agenda to find that individuals who do not agree are dishonest, I accept the evidence of the individual who had the clear evidence that he was on the electoral roll at the Cambridge Gliding Club for many years. In my judgment, the guidance from Huntingdonshire District Council dated 15 October 2012, supports the finding that 8 Abbotsley Country Homes is holiday accommodation given that it is not the time spent in the property but the nature of the occupation that establishes whether it is holiday accommodation or not.

I accept entirely Mr Beatty’s account that, other than Kenneth Harris, his tenants have been using the property as holiday accommodation rather than business or principal home. The allegations made by Mr Verdier about the holiday accommodation tenants were, according to Mr Beatty, absurd. Mr Verdier alleged that one tenant was a shelf stacker even though he was an individual who had been in the military. As Mr Beatty put it, he did not understand why Mr Verdier was making such an allegation.

I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Mr Beatty was not occupying or letting Lodge 8 as anything other than holiday accommodation. He left it to his agents to arrange and other than the one tenant, whose tenancy he brought to an end, lodge 8 has been occupied for holiday accommodation.

Mr Dedynski is the owner of lodge 11, Abbotsley Country Homes which he purchased in 2022 from Stephen Newland for the purpose of having a holiday home and also as a way of generating income. He spends a great deal of time abroad. He currently does not live at Abbotsley Country Homes, but at home with his mother at 2 Church Street, South Witham, Grantham, Lincolnshire who is 90 and who he currently needs to spend time with. Abbotsley Country Home is used as a holiday let through Magpie Property Management Limited (“Magpie”) in St Neots. Magpie are instructed by Mr Dedynski only to let the property for holiday lets and not any other type of agreement, each let being for 1 week up to 3 months total. The tenancy agreement makes it clear that the lodge is not used to be used to run a business or as a base from which to travel and to and from work and is a holiday let.

There was one occasion when he had let the property to a Simon Williams and Lucy Nevill. In early 2023 Mr Dedynski was informed by Magpie that there was an allegation that the lodge had been used for running a business. He endeavoured to speak to the tenants at the lodge but when that did not happen he issued a notice to quit and they left without possession proceedings being brought. As a consequence, Mr Dedynski made sure with Magpie that tenants were fully aware that the lodge was for holiday use only in order that there were no further issues. Mr Dedynski also made sure that the property had not been occupied all year, with gaps in occupation from 1 to 11 January and 12 October to 31 December 2023, and 1 January to 11 April 2024 and 10 September to 16 October 2024.

When an allegation was made in November 2024 that someone was using the lodge as a base from which to travel to work, he made enquiries of the tenant and clear assurance was given by the tenant that he was not in fact travelling to work from the lodge. I have read the tenant’s email and it can be seen that he was both irritated and concerned that someone had made such a false allegation. Mr Dedynski was cross examined very closely with respect to this letting, which is in very marked contrast to the way in which Ms Saunders is clearly content for the owner and occupier of lodge 10, Mr Verdier, to breach the terms of the lease without any complaint from her.

The tenant who was in occupation in late 2024 (who I will refer to only as Tony to save causing unnecessary embarrassment to him) has his own property in Abbotsley (therefore even closer than Mr Verdier’s property in St Neots) and sadly for him is going through some matrimonial difficulties. He has said throughout that he is at 11 Abbotsley on holiday let, and he is on the electoral roll at his matrimonial home in Abbotsley, Ms Saunders has told Mr Dedynski that she knows this tenant and that he lives in the area, and Mr Dedynski is aware that Tony is known by another lodge owner. Mr Dedynski says there is a point when you have to accept what is being said by someone and you have to trust them, and his letting agent at Magpie has told him that Tony is totally trustworthy.

Mr Dedynski gave his permanent address details to Pheasantland when he purchased lodge 11 and he provided a covenant when he purchased the property. He pays council tax for lodge 11, while his mother pays council tax for the South Witham property. He also pays the electricity bills. He does not provide daily laundry or cleaning, but then he does not suggest that he is letting it in the same way that someone might let very short term accommodation such as on “Air BnB” or on other similar sites. He insured the lodge for reinstatement based upon the value of reconstruction and the value of the property, and a copy of that insurance was provided to Pheasantland. The tenancy agreement makes it very clear that “you must not use the property except for the purpose of a holiday and I do not consider there is any good reason to believe the allegation that Tony is using the property other than in accordance with his own tenancy agreement and there is nothing to indicate a breach of the terms of the underlease.

Linda Davies owns the lodge at 16 Abbotsley Country Homes. She gave evidence that she spends her time between three properties: another property in the UK; Abbotsley Country Homes; and her property in Greece. Prior to Brexit and the consequences that has had with respect to the right of individuals to stay abroad, she said that she was in a maximum of three months in every six months. Ms Davies also lives in her other property in the UK where her daughter and granddaughter reside and who are effectively in hiding from an earlier relationship. Ms Davies says that she spends a lot of time there supporting her daughter and granddaughter and that she would have been there had it not been for this litigation.

At the time she purchased the property at Abbotsley she had another property in Cambridgeshire which she sold in 2019. She gave details of that property and her property in Kefalonia, Greece when she purchased the property. She was provided with the Estate Manual which she reviewed with her solicitor. She knew that she could not live in the property for more than 11 months and that it was not to be her permanent residence. She said that was absolutely not a problem for her as this lodge was to be her holiday accommodation. Had she known what was going on at Abbotsley Country Homes she would not have bought the lodge. Ms Davies plainly found the atmosphere at Abbotsley Country Homes uncomfortable. She says that someone walks around with an open dressing ground and that someone on the site always complains whatever she does – so much so that she does not want to be there. Unfortunately for her she cannot sell because of the service of the section 146 notice.

Ms Davies pays council tax on her two properties in the UK and the equivalent for her property in Greece; she is also on the voter’s register for both UK properties (she has a postal vote in Abbotsley) and the property in Greece. She said that her pension is paid into her bank account and that she has never received the winter fuel allowance. She said she has a GP in St Neots but has only been there once, she has a GP at her other property. Her dentist is in Bucharest.

The only issue with Ms Davis was that she put on a new shed because the shed when she first purchased was near to the house and had a leak and so she obtained permission from Pheasantland to put up a new shed. She said that Pheasantland told her that she needed to change it and so she did – she said that if the directors tell her to do something she does it. Any breach of covenant was therefore remedied as soon as it was brought to her attention. Ms Davies entered into a deed of covenant when she purchased lodge 16 Abbotsley Country House but entered into another to ensure there was no issue. In response to the blanket allegations that owners of the lodges were using them as their permanent residence, Ms Davies responded on 15 February 2023 to the queries of Pheasantland that she had signed a deed of covenant when she purchased the property; that she was moving her pots and the shed; and that she had only been there for 36 days from 9 July 2023 [that must have meant 2022]; that she has only ever used it when in England during the winter months; and that she would sell as soon as she possibly could but the current situation was stopping her.

With respect to living at Abbotsley during the covid-19 lockdown, she correctly said that the regulations meant that you needed to stay where you were as only essential travel was to be undertaken and it was not appropriate, particularly for the older and vulnerable, to be moving with the risk of being exposed, and potentially, infected with the covid-19 virus which was, at that time, an extremely dangerous virus for the elderly and vulnerable.

David Pacey owns 18 Abbotsley Country Homes, together with his wife Lynne. Mr Pacey’s evidence is that their primary residence is a substantial villa in Rojales, Alicante which they purchased in 2004. They had previously lived in a large country house in South Yorkshire in 1999 which they sold in 2019. When they first moved into 18 Abbotsley they let their immediate landlord know their address in South Yorkshire and then, later, the address in Spain.

Mr Pacey’s evidence was that Lodge 18 had been purchased by him and his wife in October 2016 in order that they could have a holiday home close to their daughter and her husband as they had their first child on 22 September 2016. It is the most natural thing for parents to want to have a close connection with their children and grandchildren and it is a clear motivation for Mr and Mrs Pacey buying a property they could stay at from time to time, in order that they could be close to their family. I accept David Pacey’s evidence as a straightforward and honest witness.

In addition to the property at Abbotsley Country Homes, Mr and Mrs Pacey purchased another holiday home at Kelling Heath, North Norfolk in October 2020. This is a property they also visit on a regular basis and, like their lodge at Abbotsley Country Homes, is a holiday home located on a site.

Mr Pacey’s evidence was that the principal home in Spain comprises three bedrooms, two bathrooms and has its own swimming pool in a private garden with mature orange trees. Mr Pacey says it is a much larger and more comfortable property than the lodge and the only reason that they do not spend even more time in Spain is because of the restrictions imposed posed by Brexit so that they have a maximum of 2 periods of 3 months over a calendar year. Mr Pacey suffers from advanced cancer which requires him to have injections every four weeks and he now has those administered by his doctor in Spain, with whom he and his wife are registered. The Paceys are also registered with a GP local to Abbotsley, but their dentist is in Spain. Mr Pacey said that they do not have residency in Spain because of the onerous tax obligations, but that if had not been for the current litigation then they would have been in Spain at the time of the hearing in May/June. Mr Pacey talked about having a lot more friends and having their social life in Spain.

In addition to the two holiday properties in England and the principal home in Spain, the Paceys enjoy one or two cruises each year and Mr Pacey estimated that they spent approximately a third of each year at the lodge in Abbotsley Country Homes (this is calculated on the basis that he spent 36% of the time at the lodge in 2024, and that was typical of an average year). There was one document put to Mr Pacey in cross examination which set out the various days spent in various places which indicated that 175 days (slightly under 50% of the year) had been spent at Abbotsley, but that was at a time when he thought he could only have his four-weekly injection when he was in Abbotsley and so he would travel back for this. He now has the injection in Spain and Norfolk as well as in Abbotsley and is therefore much more flexible with where he needs to be. He says that in any year he would spend 6 months in Spain, two months (July and August) in Norfolk when it is too hot in Spain, that he would probably cruise for a week (although he had a 4 week cruise in January this year), have a week in Barbados and also go off to see friends in Essex and spend Christmas at his daughter’s home. On this basis, his current occupation of the lodge is about 3 months.

Mr Pacey said that he and his wife are both registered to vote both at Abbotsley and at their Spanish property and that they pay Council tax for Abbotsley and a property tax for the property in Spain together with SUMA, the equivalent of council tax.

Mr Pacey was an accountant and company director, but he has been retired for 21 years and he receives a pension. He said that he is given the winter fuel allowance which he had thought was simply part of his pension.

Ms Saunders was particularly keen to focus on the winter fuel allowance as she seemed to believe that it was a “knock out point”, and leading counsel asked all the unrepresented defendants about whether they received it. The eligibility requirements for the winter fuel allowance, before the recent governmental changes, was as follows in 2023: the recipient had to have been born on or before 23 September 1957; had to have lived in the UK for at least one day during the qualifying week, which was 18 to 24 September 2023; an individual may still qualify if living in certain countries with a genuine link to the UK (for example having lived or worked in the UK and received a UK state pension). Mr Pacey and his wife may have their principal home in Spain, but they do not live there all the time and they are in receipt of a pension and consequently they are entitled to the winter fuel allowance (under the former provisions). So long as they were in the UK one day during the qualifying week they get the payment. That payment is paid automatically into the bank account with the pension. It certainly does not show anything about their occupation of Abbotsley as Ms Saunders appears to be convinced that it does.

Mr Pacey had been a director of Pheasantland and recorded his address as such as being at lodge 18, Abbotsley Country Homes. It makes perfect sense for him to have done so given that is his address when residing at Abbotsley Country Homes, and Pheasantland’s only interest is the intermediate lease of Abbotsley Country Homes. Huntingdonshire District Council had advised that the lodge owners could redirect their mail to the lodge address, provided it was not related to the running of a business, and for him it was sensible because the postal system in Spain is very poor and their daughter, who lives close by, was able to pop into the lodge in order to keep an eye on any mail received in case it needed urgent attention. He also used the 18, Abbotsley Country Homes address for post relating to a tax planning investment he had with Orwell Films LLP. He told the court that it was not a business but an investment that he was involved in with others.

Mr and Mrs Pacey were initially stuck at Abbotsley Country Lodge because of the covid lockdown restrictions. They had purchased a car in Spain in February 2020 and were due to collect the car on 1 April 2020. Unfortunately for them, as they were at Abbotsley when the lockdown was announced, the ban on non-essential travel and the instruction to remain in current a residence, meant that they were expected to stay put at the lodge. There were no flights and no ferries andthe ban on non-essential travel meant that people were expected to stay wherever they were. From his evidence, it appears that when they were able to travel but not back to Spain, they spent a lot of time in Norfolk.

Looking objectively at all the evidence provided by Mr Pacey, challenged with rigour in cross examination, it is clear to me that he is a man who has retired with sufficient funds to enable him to have a very relaxed and lengthy retirement, which enables him to have a substantial property in Spain, together with two holiday properties in the UK including the property at Abbotsley which was convenient as a base from where they could visit their daughter and her family who live nearby. While a person who is retired may not be “on holiday” the whole time, the way in which Mr and Mrs Pacey split their time is that they have a fairly itinerant lifestyle, moving from property to property and spending time away from all three properties when taking holidays elsewhere. Like others who own the lodges, Mr and Mrs Pacey are fortunate not to have to stay in only one place.

Mr Pacey was asked about the letter from Huntingdonshire District Council dated 15 October 2012 written to Mark Chatfield of PI Estates Limited, in which a number of matters were set out, including:

“2.

There is no limit on the time people can spend at a lodge provided they are using it as holiday accommodation. It is the nature of their use, not the time people spend there that determines whether the condition is being complied with.

3.

A lodge owner who did not have a primary address where they resided for significant period would in my view find it difficult to demonstrate that they were complying with the condition if they spent significant periods at their lodge.”

Mr Pacey said he had considered it and, while this is only advice and not binding on any one, it is a useful indication of how to consider Mr Pacey’s occupation of Abbotsley, which is clearly not as a permanent place of residence but as holiday accommodation. Like other lodge owners, albeit for a variety of different reasons, Mr Pacey and his wife have an itinerant lifestyle where they are able to live at a number of different homes as they are fortunate enough to have a number of different properties as well as being able to go away on cruises and other shorter trips. This lifestyle does not mean that Abbotsley is their permanent home or primary residence. He said his friends and his social life are more in Spain and that is a clear indication that his home is there, not here.

Mr Pacey made it clear that, like other residents, he finds being in Abbotsley now very unpleasant. He was asked about his daughter, who had been a police sergeant in Hertfordshire but had not been in the police for 9 years. His son-in-law is in the fraud squad. He said he found it insulting that there is a suggestion from Ms Saunders that there had been some sort of improper behaviour on her part with respect to the police involvement at Abbotsley. It is clear to me that the involvement of the police was because of what was happening, with what was a fundamentally a civil dispute being conducted in a way which ended in criminal behaviour – namely the assaults committed by Ms Saunders.

The letter dated 25 March 2020 from the email of Mr Pacey, which he did not specifically remember sending, set out that his daughter had suggested that if Ms Saunders were to turn the water off while they were in lockdown because of Covid, so that they could not wash their hands, then the police are likely to take that seriously. As said in the letter, “it seems a little extreme” but that the hope was “that she sees reason and does not carry out her threat in the current unprecedented situation.”

Mr Pacey was clearly very fed up with the situation at Abbotsley. He said that things that had happened there were absolutely absurd and that Ms Saunders wanted compensation and only wanted things to happen in the way she wanted things to happen. He said that the correspondence that the lodge owners received from Ms Saunders could be upsetting. He was shown the “open offer to settle” dated 21 December 2023, but did not recall receiving it. That is not surprising as it was written to the solicitors for the First Defendant, Debenhams Ottaway and there is no reason as to why he would have received it. He certainly would not have received it directly.

Lynne Pacey confirmed the contents of her husband’s statement and reiterated that the property in Spain is her home and that, since Brexit, they have been curtailed in the amount of time they can spend in Spain but it is the maximum of two periods of three months in a year (one in each six month period). She told the court that there is a long history of them being in the Spanish property and it has been their permanent home since they purchased it. She agreed with the holiday chart for 2024, that was after Brexit and they therefore spent less time in Spain. This year she said they have already spent a month this year on a cruise.

Having recorded the evidence in very lengthy, but sadly in this case necessary, detail I turn to the central issues.

This part of the dispute arises from the claimants’ allegation that Pheasantland is “purloining” water to supply the chalet land from the supply of water to Abbotsley.

Ms Saunders contends that on a date unknown to the claimants, but asserted in the course of the trial and in closing submissions to be at the time the golf course was leased to American Golf UK Limited, “someone wrongfully removed a part of a water pipe laid under the golf course … and connected to it about 75m of a blue 63mm flexible MDPE pipe.” It is alleged that this is a trespass and that the wooden log cabins on the “chalet land” have been wrongfully drawing water from the Abbotsley supply for years. Ms Saunders refers to this connection to the Abbotsley pipe as a “bodge”. Ms Saunders, on behalf of herself and Abbotsley, allege that Pheasantland from 2017, when it was assigned the remainder of the Lease, adopted the trespass on the water supply and continued to trespass on a daily basis.

The claimants’ case is that a supply of water via the blue pipe was not contemplated or agreed under the contracts, including the Lease, and that there is no requirement to supply “potable” water to the chalet land. The words “potable” and “non-potable” attached to the word “water” do not appear in any of the relevant documentation, including the Agreement for the Lease and the Lease. These words appear for the first time in the particulars of claim and, despite Ms Saunders wrongly stating on oath that the words came from counsel to the first defendant, it must be a word whose use in this case has originated either from Ms Saunders or from counsel instructed by her. The introduction of these additional words is to support Ms Saunders’ contention that the obligation to supply water only related to irrigation (non-potable) water. It simply does not withstand scrutiny.

Abbotsley and Ms Saunders contend that the trespass was not known until 2017, believing “that the contents of the certificate of completion were correct until in or about 2017” when the golf course business came to an end by reason of vandalism followed by, I have been informed by Ms Saunders, a failure to carry out the remediation works correctly by the company instructed by the insurer. It is alleged in the particulars of claim that the twelfth defendant, Mr Neil Warren, implicated himself in the vandalism. Mr Warren has killed himself and cannot now respond to the allegations made against him, although he persistently denied those allegations. While he was himself subjected to an assault by Ms Saunders, for which she was convicted, Mr Warren’s friends and neighbours do not support any suggestion that he was engaged in any wrongdoing and I have not heard any corroborating evidence which supports this extremely serious allegation made by Ms Saunders. I formally record that allegation as being totally unfounded and unsupported by any believable evidence and, insofar as it is necessary for the purpose of bringing finality to these allegations, dismissed.

It is alleged by the claimants that as a result of still receiving high water bills, when the hotel and golf course were no longer operating, investigations were undertaken which resulted in discovering that “the source of the costly water bills” was the connection of the blue pipe. The claimants’ case is that neither Luddington, nor their successors in title, including Pheasantland, had permission to cut or remove any part of the Abbotsley pipe or connect to the “First Claimant’s water main supply pipe.”

Despite the assertion in the closing submissions that the supply of water through the blue pipe from the Abbotsley pipe would be unlawful by reason of water regulations, there is no pleading that the way in which water has been supplied for many years is an unlawful supply and it is not something raised in the many witness statements of Ms Saunders. It was not used as a basis to strike out the defence, when Ms Saunders unsuccessfully attempted to obtain “early resolution”, and it was not included in the list of issues (it could not have been as it was not a pleaded matter). In her opening, leading counsel for the claimants simply mentioned in opening “I’ll say regulations made it impossible to connect to a private supply” without giving any particulars and on the last day of the trial reference was made by leading counsel to The Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016, which are not now relied upon. Unsurprisingly, in these circumstances, no water regulations were put to any of the defendants or their witnesses when giving evidence (and Ms Saunders apparently did not give instructions that these points should be put, having signed for the benefit of her counsel that all questions she wished to be have been put, had been put).

As counsel know, the claimants are not entitled to raise a new point by way of submissions which has not been raised in the pleadings or the witness statements. Leading counsel has made this very point against herself when she acknowledges that the false allegation against Colm that he was trespassing on Abbotsley land on a date when he was not in the country could not be proceeded with because, it was said on her behalf, Ms Saunders had provided the wrong date in error (rather than it being a false allegation which was shown to be false because Colm was not in the country at the time) and she had not amended the pleading.

The fundamental importance of statements of case in an adversarial system setting out the basis of the claims being brought has been made clear in numerous cases including Al Medeeni v Mars UK Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 104, per Dyson LJ and Jacobs v Chalcot Crescent (Management) Company Limited [2024] EWHC 259, per Fancourt J. It is essential that the parties are aware of the case they have to meet in order that it can be answered. I should record that neither of these cases were cited by counsel in the very lengthy Authorities Bundle, and have not been referred to by me before the draft of this judgment. They contain principales which are not controversial and will be well known to counsel, but I have given counsel the opportunity to comment upon these cases when considering the draft judgment.

There has been no application for an amendment to the pleadings, even at this very late stage, and this is not a matter that is properly before the court. Indeed, if the argument of the claimants is that the regulatory framework relating to the supply of water means that it would be unlawful for water to be provided via Abbotsley then this is an issue that would have been raised many years ago by Ms Saunders, it certainly would have been raised as part of the pleaded case and raised in the unsuccessful attempt to strike out the defence, and would have been part of the agreed list of issues. It is also something that the statutory water provider can be expected to have been concerned about. The fact that it is raised only by way of submissions at the end of such lengthy litigation, indicates that the claimants are concerned that the pleaded case does not stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, counsel for the first defendant set out in his opening submissions that “the credibility of the second claimant is crucial because she is the only person who gives evidence about the alleged oral agreement. If the court cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities about the existence of this oral agreement, then the claimant cannot succeed in her claim.” He wrote that on the basis of the case that had been pleaded – not on some new case that has been put forward in closing submissions. It is understandable that he is “perplexed” by the claimants’ written closing.

Ms Saunders was clear in her evidence that she was aware that there was water being provided through the black 50mm alkathene pipe laid in 1991 from the Anglian water mains and meter point in the Abbotsley land to Stockman’ Cottage and Hunter’s Cottage (that is Mr Brindley and Mr Warren). Ms Saunders accepted that there were sub meters for those two properties, along with the Greenkeeper’s shed and her own house. She said that there was a difference between having to supply water and having a free passage of water but it was clear that she was not concerned about any potential issues with respect to water regulations and water coming through the black alkathene pipe to supply other properties. Had she been concerned that no doubt she would have raised that as an issue.

As far as this court is concerned, that is the end of the matter. It is an argument that has not been pleaded and is not properly before the court. While I considered whether I should, for completeness, deal with the point as it was set out in the claimants’ final written submissions and the written response of the first defendant, I have determined that it would be inappropriate to do so.

While it is understandable that the first defendant’s counsel felt it necessary to meet the argument raised for the first time in submissions, in order to protect his lay client, it would wrong for me to come to a determination. The fact that it was raised in the way it was by the claimants, and with the clear uncertainty on the claimants’ part over what might be the appropriate water regulations; the fact that there has been no opportunity for the first defendant to deal with the assertions during pleadings, disclosure, witness statements and the trial; the fact that the individual defendants were in no position to deal with the last minute assertions at all given their lack of representation; the fact that there is no evidence that any authority has taken any steps to test any of the water supplies over the Abbotsley land; and the fact that no-one who knew about the supply of mains water from the Abbotsley water pipe, including Anglian Water, raised any concerns about the supply, all establish that it would be wrong to come to any judgment on this point.

The Civil Procedure Rules are in place for good reason and, without the issue about water regulations being pleaded and explored at trial, it is impossible to know what the implications might be with respect to the non-testing of any of the supplies of water. It further appears that the claimants may be seeking to apply the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 in an entirely inappropriate way, given that the blue pipe conveying water to the chalet land is not part of the water undertaker’s responsibility in any event.

Had this been an argument that Ms Saunders wished to argue on behalf of herself and Abbotsley she needed to raise it in the pleadings. I envisage that Ms Saunders would now be issue estopped from raising it pursuant to the principles set out by Wigram V-C in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 110, 115 as referred to by Lord Sumption in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Sento UK Ltd [2014] AC 160. Again, because of the manner in which these points have been raised in this case neither of these cases were cited by counsel to me but they are not controversial and, of course, counsel have the opportunity to address me with respect to them when considering the draft of this judgment.

I will deal with the contentions that have been properly put before the court.

It is contended on behalf of Abbotsley and Ms Saunders that there is a “conventional easement” in the Lease which had contemplated the works in the Agreement to Lease and for the tenant (Luddington) to run a pipe across the golf course to the public road so that it could be connected to the Anglian Water mains. It was further submitted on behalf of the claimants that “mains” is mains from the water supplier Anglian Water.

Ms Saunders set out in her witness statements that she had come to an agreement with Roy Horton of Luddington as to the line of the pipe that was to be laid beneath the golf course. This was pleaded to be a separate contract in the particulars of claim and reply. I cannot be satisfied, as a matter of fact, that there was any separate agreement between Ms Saunders and Mr Horton. The contemporaneous documentary evidence does not support the existence of any such agreement and, given the nature of the transaction and the existence of an Agreement to Lease and written Specification of Works, it is difficult to understand why such an important matter would not have been recorded in the contractual documentation. Both Luddington and Abbotsley were legally represented by experienced and well-regarded property solicitors, respectively Willmetts and Wilsons.

Ms Saunders chose not to call Mr Horton, even though it became apparent from the evidence of one of the individual defendants that he was in fact easily contactable, and Ms Saunders explanation for not calling him was entirely nonsensical – basically she said there was no need to call him because there was an agreement.

Pheasantland submits that the failure to call Mr Horton is a matter from which I can draw an adverse inference, and relies upon the recent Court of Appeal decision Alexander Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage (Newbury) Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 467. The determination of Dingemans LJ in Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 (not referred to in submissions, but in Alexander Johnstone) refers to the principle that whether it is appropriate to draw an inference, and if so the nature and extent of the inference, will depend on the facts of the particular case; and that a failure to adduce relevant documents, or in this case relevant oral evidence, may convert evidence on the other side into proof, but that may depend on the explanation given. I am satisfied that there was no oral agreement between Ms Saunders and Mr Horton and that her failure to call him is not only because he would not have been able to support her in her claim that there was such an agreement, but that her contention was simply untrue. There has been no logical explanation for him not being called – not even a statement from him saying that he could not recall anything and therefore could be of no assistance. In those circumstances, the adverse inference must be drawn that her failure to call him was to avoid positive evidence that Ms Saunders had been seeking to mislead the court on this issue.

Despite it being pleaded with rigour that there was a separate enforceable oral contract for the location of the water pipe: the reply setting out that “for the avoidance of doubt” there was a “discrete oral contract”, and further stating that there was an “oral agreement” for the provision of potable water; during the trial the claimants through counsel, and in the oral evidence of Ms Saunders, sought to resile from the pleaded position and alleged that it was not a contract but an agreement without consideration. Ms Saunders put it like this: “No. Not a contract, no consideration. Just saying your pipe needs to go from here to there. There is no separate oral agreement and nothing is evidenced in writing.”

That fundamental change in position can only have arisen because it became apparent to Ms Saunders that the pleaded argument that there was an oral contract with respect to the water pipe could not be established. The pleading could not have been clearer that her case was that there was a separate oral contract. It was on the basis that the water pipe ought to have been in a totally different location to the actual location (that is, the blue pipe which Ms Saunders refers to as the “trespass pipe) that she kept insisting, in increasingly extreme ways – including the various occasions of cutting off of the water supply – that Pheasantland and the individual lodge owners agree with the view that the pipe was running up to the Anglian Water pipe.

The assertion that, contrary to the pleaded claim, there had been no consideration is misconceived. Had Ms Saunders been able to establish, as a matter of fact, that she had discussions with Mr Horton and reached an agreement, then that agreement would have had contractual force (as she alleged in the pleadings) as there would have been consideration. As set out in the closing written submissions of counsel for Pheasantland:

“The first requirement for the formation of a contract is that the parties should have reached agreement. Generally the law regards an agreement as having been reached when an offer made by one of the parties (the offeror) is accepted by the other to whom the offer is address (the offeror or acceptor). However, such an agreement may still lack contractual force because it is incomplete, because its terms are not sufficiently certain, because its operation is subject to a condition which fails to occur or because it was made without any intention to create legal relations. An agreement may also lack contractual force for want of consideration.” (see Chitty on Contracts para 4-001)

It is clear that, had there been an agreement between Mr Horton on behalf of Luddington and Ms Saunders on behalf of Abbotsley, there would have been consideration giving the agreement contractual force: Luddington had the benefit of entering onto the golf course land in order to lay the pipe, Ms Saunders and Abbotsley had the benefit of water being provided to the wooden lodges on the “chalet land” making them saleable and the claimants thereby having a valuable asset.

“Under the doctrine of consideration, a promise has no contractual force unless some value has been given for it. But as a general rule the courts do not concern themselves with the question whether “adequate” value has been given, or whether the agreement is harsh or one-sided. The courts do not concern themselves with the question whether “adequate” value has been given.” (see Chitty on Contracts para 6-015)

I am satisfied there was no oral agreement. Ms Saunders invented this oral agreement in order to construct the case that she wanted to make that the blue water pipe was a “trespass pipe” so that she could, quite wrongly, feel she could be justified in cutting off the water supply to the chalet land. Had Ms Saunders continued to contend, as per her pleadings, that there was a separate oral agreement, then she would have lost on that argument.

Contrary to the pleaded case, the claimants do not now contend that there was a separate oral agreement with Mr Horton of Luddington. The court is therefore only concerned with construing the written agreements.

The relevant documents are the Agreement to Lease dated 11 January 2003, the Written Specification, the Practical Completion Certificate dated 5 June 2003, and the Lease dated 11 July 2003 between Abbotsley and Luddington. There is additionally the Lease between Abbotsley and American Golf (UK) Limited dated 22 July 1999.

The starting point for the construction of the written documents is Lord Neuberger in Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36 where he sets out that:

“[15] When interpreting a written contract, the court is concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to “what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean,” to quote Lord Hoffman in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] AC1101.    And it does so by focussing on the meaning of the relevant words… in their documentary, factual and commercial context.   That meaning has to be assessed in the light of (i) the natural and ordinary meaning of the clause, (ii) any other relevant provisions of the lease, (iii) the overall purpose of the clause and the lease, (iv) the facts and circumstances known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was executed, and (v) commercial common sense, but (vi) disregarding subjective evidence of any party’s intentions…

[16] For present purposes, I think it is important to emphasise seven factors.

[17] First, the reliance placed in some cases on commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances … The exercise of interpreting a provision involves identifying what the parties meant through the eyes of a reasonable reader, and, save perhaps in a very unusual case, that meaning is most obviously to be gleaned from the language of the provision.  Unlike commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances, the parties have control over the language they use in a contract.   Again, save perhaps in a very unusual case, the parties must have been specifically focussing on the issue covered by the provision when agreeing the wording of that provision.

[18] Secondly, when it comes to considering the centrally relevant words to be interpreted, I accept that the less clear they are, or, to put it another way, the worse their drafting, the more ready the court can properly be to depart from their natural meaning.    That is simply the obverse of the sensible proposition that the clearer the natural meaning the more difficult it is to justify departing from it.  However, that does not justify the court embarking on an exercise of searching for, let alone constructing, drafting infelicities in order to facilitate a departure from the natural meaning.  If there is specific error in the drafting, it  may often have no relevance to the issue of interpretation which the court has to resolve.

[19]  The third point I should mention is that commercial common sense is not to be invoked retrospectively.   The mere fact that a contractual arrangement, if interpreted according to its natural language, has worked out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the parties is not a reason for departing from the natural language.   Commercial common sense is only relevant to the extent of how matters would or could have been perceived by the parties, or by reasonable people in the position of the parties, as at the date that the contract was made …

[20]   Fourthly, while common sense is a very important factor to take into account when interpreting a contract, a court should be very slow to reject the natural meaning of a provision as correct simply because it appears to be a very imprudent term for one of the parties to have agreed, even ignoring the benefit of wisdom of hindsight.   The purpose of interpretation is to identify what the parties have agreed, not what the court thinks that they should have agreed…

[21] The fifth point concerns the facts known to the parties.   When interpreting a contractual provision, one can only take into account facts or circumstances which existed at the time that the contract was made, which were known or reasonably available to both parties.   Given that a contract is a bilateral, or synallagmatic, arrangement involving both parties, it cannot be right, when interpreting a contractual provision, to take into account a fact or circumstance known only to one of the parties.

[22]  Sixthly, in some cases an event subsequently occurs which was plainly not intended or contemplated by the parties, judging from the language of their contract.   In such a case, if it is clear what the parties would have intended, the court will give effect to that intention…

[23]   Seventhly, reference was made in argument to service charge clauses being construed “restrictively”.   I am unconvinced by the notion that service charge clauses are to be subject to any special rule of interpretation…”

Lord Hodge SCJ in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24, set out the following with respect to the court’s task when considering the construction of documents:

“[10]  The court's task is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen to express their agreement. It has long been accepted that this is not a literalist exercise focused solely on a parsing of the wording of the particular clause but that the court must consider the contract as a whole and, depending on the nature, formality and quality of drafting of the contract, give more or less weight to elements of the wider context in reaching its view as to that objective meaning. In Prenn  v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381 (1383H-1385D) and in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 (997) , Lord Wilberforce affirmed the potential relevance to the task of interpreting the parties' contract of the factual background known to the parties at or before the date of the contract, excluding evidence of the prior negotiations. When in his celebrated judgment in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd  v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 Lord Hoffmann (pp 912-913) reformulated the principles of contractual interpretation, some saw his second principle, which allowed consideration of the whole relevant factual background available to the parties at the time of the contract, as signalling a break with the past…

[11].  Lord Clarke elegantly summarised the approach to construction in Rainy Sky [SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50at para 21f. In Arnold all of the judgments confirmed the approach in Rainy Sky (Lord Neuberger paras 13-14; Lord Hodge para 76; and Lord Carnwath para 108). Interpretation is, as Lord Clarke stated in Rainy Sky (para 21), a unitary exercise; where there are rival meanings, the court can give weight to the implications of rival constructions by reaching a view as to which construction is more consistent with business common sense. But, in striking a balance between the indications given by the language and the implications of the competing constructions the court must consider the quality of drafting of the clause … Similarly, the court must not lose sight of the possibility that a provision may be a negotiated compromise or that the negotiators were not able to agree more precise terms.

[12]  This unitary exercise involves an iterative process by which each suggested interpretation is checked against the provisions of the contract and its commercial consequences are investigated …  To my mind once one has read the language in dispute and the relevant parts of the contract that provide its context, it does not matter whether the more detailed analysis commences with the factual background and the implications of rival constructions or a close examination of the relevant language in the contract, so long as the court balances the indications given by each.

[13]  Textualism and contextualism are not conflicting paradigms in a battle for exclusive occupation of the field of contractual interpretation. Rather, the lawyer and the judge, when interpreting any contract, can use them as tools to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen to express their agreement. The extent to which each tool will assist the court in its task will vary according to the circumstances of the particular agreement or agreements. Some agreements may be successfully interpreted principally by textual analysis, for example because of their sophistication and complexity and because they have been negotiated and prepared with the assistance of skilled professionals. The correct interpretation of other contracts may be achieved by a greater emphasis on the factual matrix, for example because of their informality, brevity or the absence of skilled professional assistance. But negotiators of complex formal contracts may often not achieve a logical and coherent text because of, for example, the conflicting aims of the parties, failures of communication, differing drafting practices, or deadlines which require the parties to compromise in order to reach agreement. There may often therefore be provisions in a detailed professionally drawn contract which lack clarity and the lawyer or judge in interpreting such provisions may be particularly helped by considering the factual matrix and the purpose of similar provisions in contracts of the same type…

[14]  On the approach to contractual interpretation, Rainy Sky and Arnold were saying the same thing.

[15]  The recent history of the common law of contractual interpretation is one of continuity rather than change. One of the attractions of English law as a legal system of choice in commercial matters is its stability and continuity, particularly in contractual interpretation.”

Abbotsley entered into the lease of the “chalet land” with Luddington for a term of 125 years from the contractual term commencement date of 17 July 2003 (“The Lease”). The “chalet” was described as a three bedroomed detached log chalet of the same type and design permitted by the Planning Documents. The Lease was entered into with the benefit of planning permission for twelve chalets with the potential of up to eight additional chalets. Luddington assigned their interest in the “chalet land” on or about 5 July 2004 to Norwegian Log Chalets Limited (Norwegian Log Chalets) who assigned their interest to P.I. Estates Limited (“PI Estates”) on or about 15 September 2010. The underleases of the log cabins on the “chalet land” were all granted by either Norwegian Log Chalets or PI Estates. The permitted use was as holiday and second home residential accommodation in chalets “together with all services ancillary thereto”. Pheasantland is the successor in title to PI Estates and the current leasehold owner of the “chalet land” and immediate landlord to the individual chalet owners.

Abbotsley entered into negotiations with Luddington in or about 2002 for the purpose of granting the Lease of part of the 18 acre site for an area of land to contain luxury wooden log cabins. On 11 January 2003, Luddington entered into an Agreement to Lease with Abbotsley for the purpose of being able to carry out infrastructure works on the “chalet land” in anticipation of the granting of a lease.

The Agreement to Lease defined infrastructure works as meaning “the infrastructure works which are to be carried out on the Site in accordance with the terms of this agreement as briefly summarised in the first schedule and as more particularly described in the Building Documents”. In consideration of the payment of an “Agreement Premium” Abbotsley gave licence and authority to Luddington to enter upon the “chalet land” for the purpose of carrying out the infrastructure works.

Clause 2 of the Agreement provided as follows:

INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS

Clause 2.6 therefore provided unrestricted access to Luddington to enable Luddington to carry out the Infrastructure Works. It included the right to connect into the irrigation system of Abbotsley for the purpose of carrying out those Infrastructure Works. This is consistent with Ms Saunders’ evidence that this connection into the irrigation system was for the provision of water to enable the Infrastructure Works to be carried out. Connection to the irrigation system was not an Infrastructure Work – it simply allowed for the Infrastructure Works to be undertaken. The particulars of claim set out that the connection with the irrigation supply was only ever intended to be for temporary provision of “non-potable water”.

This reference to “non-potable” water is the mention of the word “non-potable” or “potable”. Again, as this distinction does not appear in either the Agreement to Lease or in the Lease itself it must be a word used either by counsel drafting the particulars of claim or a word used by Ms Saunders in instructions. It is not in the documents I am construing.

Clause 14 of the Agreement to Lease contained a right to terminate by either party if the Certificate of Practical Completion had not been issued by 31 December 2004. The original provided that the Certificate of Practical Completion was not be issued by 31 December 2003 but that was altered, in one part of the document, to 2004 and initialled by Ms Saunders.

The Schedules to the Agreement to Lease contained details of the Infrastructure Works themselves. The First Schedule set out the infrastructure works to be carried out as follows:

The infrastructure works clearly included the construction of water services. That is not at all surprising given that the purpose of the Agreement to Lease was allow for a Lease of the “chalet land” with habitable three bedroomed log cabins which would require water along with electricity, telephone service, sewage and other usual services. There is no reference to potable or non-potable water and the connection to the “Landlord’s golf irrigation system” is separate to the construction and installation of “water services”. In accordance with the guidance provided in Arnold v Brittan and The Ocean Neptune, the Agreement is providing for infrastructure works for the provision of water to the log cabins.

The Agreement also incorporated the written specification for the Infrastructure Works at the Abbotsley Golf and Squash Club chalet site at paragraph 1.5 of the Second Schedule to the Agreement as follows:

Other potentially relevant parts of the Second Schedule include:

Paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule deals with Consents of Adjoining owners” with 3.1 and 3.2 defining “Adjoining Property” as any property adjoining or in the neighbourhood of the Site and including all roads walls fences buildings and other erections and Apparatus on such property and “Adjoining Owners” as all owners and occupiers of any Adjoining Property (including (where applicable) the Landlord”. Paragraph 3.3 defines “Apparatus” as all (if any) pipes wires cables and other apparatus on the Site or any Adjoining Property or belonging to or used for the purposes of the undertaking of any statutory undertaker.

“Consent” is defined at 3.5 as the consent in writing “of all Adjoining Owners and other persons entitled to or interested in the Adverse Right or Apparatus in question to 3.5.1 the obstruction interference with removal or diversion (whether temporarily or permanently) of the Apparatus or other subject matter of any Adverse Right or 3.5.2 the carrying out of the Infrastructure Works on terms previously approved in writing by the Landlord such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.”

The written specification for the infrastructure works provides as follows:

“Abbotsley Golf Club Chalet Site

Specification for the Infrastructure Works …

Electric, water, telephone and a sewage treatment plant are the services that will be installed as part of the Infrastructure Works. The routes of the services off the entrance road or through the golf course will follow those previously agreed by [Abbotsley]with the relevant statutory service providers.

If it is possible to improve the routes of the services by negotiation with the statutory service providers [Luddington] will seek the permission of [Abbotsley]the Landlord for the change of route before committing to or undertaking the works”

The water will be connected to the mains at [sic.](should read “and”) the route of the water supply will be agreed with [Abbotsley] before the work commenced.”

This wording contradicts Ms Saunders’ contention that the water pipe would be taken across the golf course and then connected with the Anglian Water main “at some point”. The connection to the mains had to have taken place in order for the Practical Completion Certificate to be signed. There was no requirement for a connection to the Anglian Water main as is contended for by the claimants, and there was no connection to the Anglian Water main.

Paragraph 10.1 of the Second Schedule to the Agreement to the Lease provides that the “”Certificate for Practical Completion” means a certificate by the Architect to the effect that in the opinion of the Architect all of the Infrastructure Works have been substantially completed such that up to 20 Chalets can be constructed on the Site immediately connected to an electricity and water supply and to adequate means of disposal for foul drainage and be accessible from the public highway and otherwise ready for immediate beneficial occupation and use in accordance with the terms of the Lease and will all requirements of any Competent Authority.” In other words, as Ms Saunders knew at the time of the Certificate, the supply of water was in place to enable “immediate beneficial occupation.”

The Practical Completion Certificate itself also refers to the “ring main” which has nothing to do with Anglian Water and shows that, contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the claimant, “mains” was not being used to mean Anglian Water and there was no requirement to connect to the pipes of Anglian Water, or another service provider. The construction that “mains” was a reference to the water being provided and not that it required a connection to Anglian Water is supported by the OS plan annotated by Tom James in 2011 referring to the pipe across Abbotsley being “Mains Water” or “Mains Water Supply”.

The Agreement to Lease is very clear. It granted a licence to Luddington to enter onto the Abbotsley Land to carry out Infrastructure Works. By clause 2.6 that included giving Luddington unrestricted access to the adjoining land to install any underground cables required in the Infrastucture Works and to connect into Abbotsley’s irrigation system. That was plainly necessary to enable Luddington to be able to carry out the Infrastructure Works. The connection into the irrigation system was not part of the Infrastructure Works themselves which are specified in clause 1.5 of the Second Schedule to the Agreement to Lease and the written Specification for the Infrastructure Works referred to therein. Included with the Infrastructure Works are water services. There can be no argument but that Abbotsley licenced Luddington to enter onto Abbotsley land for the purpose of the installation of water services (alongside other services) for the chalets as part of the Infrastructure Works.

By Paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule to the Agreement to Lease, Abbotsley (and therefore Ms Saunders) was entitled to inspect the infrastructure works:

Ms Saunders contends that she did not take up the opportunity to inspect granted to her by the Agreement to Lease. She contends that she relied upon the work having been carried out the work by virtue of the Completion Statement having been signed off by Bruce Weller. I do not accept that evidence. Ms Saunders does not let anything rest and given her evidence that she had a “vision” for the entire site it is inconceivable that she would not have exercised her right to inspect the work that had been carried out and that it was to her satisfaction. She may have been busy with other projects in the early 2000s, including her golf, but she has shown herself to be a person of enormous energy and determination and she would not have failed to inspect, or at the very least have someone inspect on her behalf. Of course, if she did in fact fail to inspect then she is simply bound by the certificate.

Clause 9 of the Agreement to Lease provides that Luddington, as tenant, was obliged to carry out the Infrastructure Works to such a stage so that the Architect could issue a Certificate of Practical Completion by no later than 31 December 2003. That date of 2003 was altered to 2004 in clause 14.1 and initialled by Ms Saunders. Clause 10 defined the “Certificate of Practical Completion” as meaning a certificate by the Architect to the effect that in the opinion of the Architect “all of the Infrastructure Works have been substantially completed such that up to 20 Chalets can be constructed on the Site immediately connected to an electricity and water supply and to adequate means of disposal for foul drainage and be accessible from the public highway and otherwise ready for immediate beneficial occupation and use in accordance with the terms of the Lease and with all requirements of any Competent Authority.”

The Practical Completion Certificate was signed by Bruce Weller, the Golf Course Architect, on 5 June 2003. He certified that under the terms of the “Contract dated 10 February 2003 for the Infrastructure Works” he had installed and completed, inter alia, “the 63mm water main across the golf course, the 63 mm water ring main around the site and a 25 mm water pipe to each chalet plot.”. There is no other 63 mm water pipe across the golf course other than the blue pipe which carries mains water to the chalet land from the pipe serving Abbotsley. That is the pipe which has been referred to as Pipe A in these proceedings. The same pipe that Ms Saunders has, in my judgment, wrongly referred to as the “trespass pipe”.

In my judgment, the blue pipe was the pipe that was installed when the Infrastructure Works were carried out. It is 63mm and it goes across the golf course. There is no other pipe in existence and even if Ms Saunders believed that there was another pipe in existence, it plainly does not exist. That has been confirmed by the evidence of Mr Simon Jefferies who carried out a complete survey of the land with ground penetration radar equipment hired by Ms Saunders in 2020 and he could not find any other pipe. This is another example of how Ms Saunders decides something is true, will not countenance that she may be wrong and insists that everyone else must agree with her view even if all the evidence points towards her being wrong.

The directors of Pheasantland have been criticised for referring to this other pipe as “the imaginary pipe”, but that is what it is. There is no evidence of a physical pipe in the location that Ms Saunders insists upon. There is no evidence (other than Ms Saunders’ discredited evidence) that there was ever an agreement to lay a pipe along the line that she forcefully suggests.

The Practical Completion Certificate states that “The 63mm water main across the golf course, the 63mm water ring main around the site and a 25mm water pipe to each chalet plot were installed and completed.” There is a 63mm water main across the golf course. It is the blue pipe. Contrary to what Ms Saunders persistently said, Bruce Weller did not confirm that a pipe had been run along the line Ms Saunders contend for – he could not have done, as the pipe he certified as being laid was for immediate connection to allow for beneficial occupation.

Again, it was open to Ms Saunders to call Bruce Weller to give evidence to support her contention that the Practical Completion Certificate was certifying that he had installed a 63mm pipe in a different location – despite that second pipe not being found. She chose not to do so.

Counsel for the claimants refers in her closing submissions to the “absurdity of the first defendant’s case”. Not only is the use of such language unfortunate and unnecessary, particularly where it relies upon a case that was not even pleaded, but it is incorrect. The case put forward by Pheasantland, and adopted by the other individual defendants is the correct construction of the documents. The claimants are forced to rely upon the word “mains” having only one possible construction – namely directly to the Anglian Water mains, but that construction is not supported by the documentation or counsel’s own pleading. Mains water is the water that it is suitable for washing, cooking and drinking. It is supplied via a network of pipes and, in the case of Abbotsley, enters the Abbotsley land through “the 50 mm grey plastic water pipe” installed in or about 1991 by Abbotsley (see paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim). The blue pipe was connected to a supply of mains water in that grey pipe.

The difficulty for counsel submitting that mains can only mean the Anglian Water main on the Potton Road is highlighted by the pleading (at paragraph 18 of the Particulars of Claim) where it is said that the Practical Completion Certificate dated 5 June 2003 certified that Luddington had installed and completed the 63mmm water main across the golf course: “This was to be the water main supply potable water to the caravan site to be connected to the Anglian Water main on Potton Road…”. At the time of pleading this case, counsel recognised that “water main” does not just refer to the statutory provider’s pipework, but the pipework that leads from the statutory provider’s pipework carrying mains water. That is exactly what the grey pipe was doing. Further, the certificate of completion referred to the 63mm blue pipe as being a “water main” and that, too, is not an Anglian Water pipe.

By a lease that had been entered into on 22 July 1999 between Abbotsley and American Golf (UK) Limited and the American Golf Corporation, (referred to collectively as “American Golf”), the land comprising the golf course and hotel complex was let to American Golf. By clause 2.1(c) of that Lease, American Golf was obliged to supply water to Eynesbry Hardwick House and Abbotsley’s adjoining land, or any part thereof, “at the same cost per metre as [American Golf] purchases water through the mains from Anglian Water or other water supplier.” By clause 2.1(b) of the reservations, Abbotsley reserved the right to install a water supply pipe connecting to the supply to the Demised Premises and to install a meter or meters where the water supply enters Abbotsley’s adjoining land.

Consequently, while the hotel complex and golf course was let to American Golf at the time of the Agreement to Lease and the Lease, the lease to American Golf expressly provided for Abbotsley to be able to connect to the water supply. In my judgment that is precisely what happened for the purpose of providing the water required in the Infrastructure Works. It is unfortunate, and surprising, that, despite the multiple thousands of pages of documents that have been presented to the court, there is apparently no correspondence between Abbotsley and American Golf relating to the installation of the water supply required as part of the Infrastructure Works despite the fact that installation would impact upon American Golf. Such correspondence, or other documentation, had it been put before the court would no doubt have been of assistance to the court. The first defendant is concerned that the documentation has simply not been disclosed.

The agreements are therefore clear. The pipe to supply mains water to the chalet land was to be connected to the Abbotsley pipe and not to Anglian Water pipes, and that is what happened. There was no trespass to the water supply.

Supporting that construction of the contractual agreement to carry out the infrastructure works is the letter written by Ms Saunders on behalf of Abbotsley to her solicitors, Wilsons, dated 14 August 2002, contemporaneous to the discussions to grant the Lease of the “chalet land” to Luddington and a few months before the Agreement to Lease was entered into in January 2003. The second part of the letter provides “The whole idea of the agreement is that we have planning permission for 12 holiday homes. Luddington will start on that development as soon as possible. They then have the right (and obligation) to apply for more holiday homes on the same site, with additional payments to us as and when these properties are sold. The documents sent to you reflect the agreement reached.” The plan accompanying the letter expressly provides in manuscript on the plan that “WATER IN HERE OR HERE FROM ABBOTSLEY SUPPLY [NOT ANGLIA WATER] ALL PROVIDED FOR IN 1999 LEASE.” This is nothing to do with the irrigation water for the purpose of allowing the infrastructure works to be undertaken. This is where the water pipe was to be laid in order to connect with the 1990 Abbotsley water pipe. There is clear reference to the 1990 Abbotsley pipe and the American Golf Lease. I do not know how Ms Saunders could not have known that was the arrangement when she started cutting off the water supply to the lodge owners.

I should also mention that, in addition to the lack of documentation relating to the installation of the water supply, it is concerning that the letter dated 14 August 2002 – which is of such central importance – was split across the bundle between page 2366 and page 5883. Had it not been for the assiduous work of Mr Bottomley on behalf of Pheasantland, then this letter and its importance may have been missed.

Ms Saunders had been discussing development of the “chalet land” from at least 1992 when she wrote to Huntingdonshire District Council on 19 August 1992 raising concerns that the properties to be constructed were not to be occupied in February when she would prefer that the limitation was that they only be occupied for 11 months in the year (without specifying the month) and then entered into the section 106 agreement on 15 September 1994. The plan in the bundle, close to part of the s106 agreement is, again, annotated in manuscript. On that document there is reference to the it being “THE 18 ACRES RETAINED FOR HOLIDAY HOMES” and there are then a number of reservations including the right to discharge water, the right to connect to electricity and a right of way for all purposes and, significantly “A RIGHT TO CONNECT TO WATER” with a drawn arrow “TO HERE” towards the 1990 Abbotsley water pipe. It is my conclusion, based upon the documentation entered into by Ms Saunders, that had there been an instruction for the water to be from the Anglian water pipes then that would have been included on the plan and the arrow drawn up to Potton Road.

It is clear that the 63 mm blue pipe was installed in accordance with Ms Saunders wishes at the time of the construction of the infrastructure works and there was no subterfuge or “purloining” and the blue pipe is not a trespass pipe as alleged.

The Lease between Abbotsley and Luddington is dated 13 July 2003. It was entered into after the infrastructure works, including the construction of the water supply, had been completed and certified by Luddington’s architect.

As is set out by counsel for the claimants in closing submissions, the structure of the Lease is as follows: Part 1 sets out the definitions and interpretation; Part 2 sets out the demise and rents; Part 3 sets out the tenant’s covenants; Part 4, the annual payments and capital payments; Part 5, the landlord’s OK covenants; with Part 6 containing the miscellaneous provisions. The First Schedule defines the Property; the Second Schedule defines the rights granted and the exceptions and reservations; the Third Schedule refers to the Planning Documents; the Fourth Schedule sets out the Guarantor covenants; and the Sixth Schedule attaching a draft underlease. It is a comprehensive lease carefully drafted by experienced property solicitors acting on both sides.

From the definitions section “Adjoining Property” is defined as “all the neighbouring and adjoining land in which the Landlord has a freehold or leasehold interest whether at the date hereof or at a future date during the Term.” It is accepted that must include the golf course. “Conduits” is defined as “all watercourses channels sewers drains conduits gutters ducts pipes wires cables and all other connecting media or equipment for the provision of Utilities laid now or at any time within the Perpetuity Period in under or over the Property or serving the Property.” Those words “or serving” clearly include pipes serving the Property and it is accepted by counsel that where Ms Saunders sought to contend otherwise, she was not correct. “Utilities” are defined as “foul and service water drainage signals impulses electric current gas water telecommunications data communication heating ventilation air conditioning the passage of smoke and fumes and all other utilities services and facilities.” Again, water has no description of potable or non-potable, a definition introduced by Ms Saunders or her counsel.

Luddington (and its successors – including Pheasantland) covenanted with Abbotsley throughout the term of Lease, pursuant to clause 3.2.1 of the Lease:

“To pay and discharge all existing and future fates charges duties assessments impositions and outgoings of any kind whether parliamentary parochial local or of any other description now or in the future imposed or charged upon or payable in respect of the Property or any part or parts of it or the supply of Utilities to the Property whether or not of a capital or non-recurring nature and whether payable by the Superior Landlord or the Tenant or any occupier of the Property or any part or parts thereof ….”

While the documentary evidence that is available after the Lease was entered into does not inform the construction of that Lease, or the other documents such as the Agreement to Lease, it is clear that there is nothing in that available documentation which contradicts the construction of the documents being the one I have reached. The site plan produced by the Norwegian Log Buildings is marked up to show both water supply from Golf Couse (metered) and the water supply for putting green. Two separate supplies. In February 2011, an ordnance survey map set out: 2 no 63 water supply from Golf Course (metered) and water supply for putting green. An ordnance survey map was plotted by Tom James identifying the route of the pipes on the Abbotsley land and where it enters the “chalet land”.

In a letter dated 18 November 2011 from the solicitors to PI Estates (Pheasantland’s predecessors as tenant of the “chalet land”), under the heading “Water Supply” there was reference then to Ms Saunders having set out a clear threat to cut off the water supply on the basis that they had been a failure to pay (which was denied). This is clear evidence that Ms Saunders knew that Abbotsley were supplying the water and were to be paid for it. She was threatening to cut off the water supply because of alleged non-payment for Abbotsley’s supply of water to the “chalet land” not because they were not entitled to water. In the same letter, the solicitor makes complaints against Ms Saunders which are shockingly similar to the behaviour she has exhibited towards the current owners and occupiers of the lodges:

“Whether you consider it to be justifiable retaliatory conduct or not, what has transpired recently is simply unacceptable. You have repeatedly stated that there is now a “dispute” of which our clients need to make every prospective purchaser of a Lodge aware. Without being anywhere near an exhaustive list, recent activities on your part include the following – Mr and Mrs Moses experiencing abuse to them on Site (including verbal and arguable racial abuse) such that they felt it necessary to report the incidents to the Police/ Threatening to cut off the water supply to the Lodges (when you have acknowledged it is a supply to which they are entitled)/ The implicit suggestion in your letters to the residents and ourselves that anyone who asserts their legal rights against you normally results in their legal rights against you normally results in them losing, incurring substantial costs and in some cases facing prison/ Constantly referring to the Lodge owners as “inmates” / Leaving abusive voicemail messages, one of which stating that you very much hoped our clients “die over the weekend…” (my emphasis)

It is shocking that this seriously abusive behaviour from Ms Saunders towards the owners and occupiers of the lodges appears to have been occurring 14 years ago. Ms Saunders volunteered in cross examination that the potentially racial abuse of Mr and Mrs Moses was “I said to them that maybe you should go back behind the bulrushes”.

During the period 2012 to 2017 PI Estates were being charged by Abbotsley for the water supply and those invoices were being paid. By way of example, on 10 July 2012, PI Esates were charged for 196 days of water between 21 December 2011 and 5 July 2012 in the sum of £359.85 plus VAT, which was paid by cheque; and another invoice dated 26 August 2013 showed the respective meter readings for 4 January 2013 and 1 August 2013 was in the total sum of £1004.12, it was marked as being “chased” on 6 November 2013, and paid by cheque on 18 November 2013. Ms Saunders knew that Abbotsley were supplying water to the “chalet land” in accordance with the provisions of the Lease and were charging for that supply. Given the concerns of the solicitors for PI Estates that were being expressed on 18 November 2011 that Ms Saunders was threatening to cut off the water supply to the” chalet land” which she acknowledged they were entitled to, and the threat of the consequences of anyone asserting their legal rights against her, it is clear that Ms Saunders was, and in my judgment still is, willing to take a stance or promote a stance that suits her own interests which she knew did not accord with the actual position.

On 20 February 2012, Ms Saunders had purported to serve a notice to re-enter to PI Estates Limited, raising a large number of allegations of breach of covenant. In the long list of complaints, Ms Saunders raised concerns that payments had not been made but there is nothing about any “water trespass”.

After the purchase of the lease at auction by Pheasantland in December 2017, on 25 September 2018, Mr Walker wrote on behalf of Pheasantland expressing commiserations about the closure of the course closures because of the damage to the courses and setting out “Given our position as head leaseholders for Abbotsley Country Homes, you’ll appreciate that we are keen to be kept in the loop on any changes or potential changes, that might impact matters such as our water supply and drainage – but that is for the future”. In her response by email on the same day, Ms Saunders responded that she might have to be in lengthy litigation with the course contractors but that “nothing re water or drainage etc changes.”

On 22 October 2018, Ms Saunders wrote to Anglian Water seeking “a very clear understanding of the way in which Anglian Water or Wave bill us.” This letter was sent after Abbotsley received the bill for the “maximum daily demand” charges after the club was closed. Ms Saunders understanding that there was an obligation to supply water could not be clearer. In that email Ms Saunders said the following:

“We have previously made you aware that we are forced to supply water from the main meter to 24 other properties at PE19 6XN. One of these properties is a development site where there will be 9 new houses. The other 23 are all residential. In addition, we supply three properties of our own and one domestic property. The 24 properties we supply all have covenants obliging us to allow them a water supply. Each of these covenants was set up in the 1970s and 1990 before Anglian Water/Wave set this MDD…Can you please confirm whether the MDD is considered to be a standing charge. If it is, then it is my intention to divide this reasonably between the other 24 properties we are forced to supply.”

It is clear from this email that, whatever Ms Saunders now says, that she knew that the water to the chalet land was being supplied by Abbotsley and she knew that Abbotsley were obliged to supply that water. Her concern, understandably, was that the water charges were so high (£26,000 for the period 30 September 2017 to 30 September 2018) even though the golf club was not operating. Ms Saunders’ attempts to explain her language and her clear understanding of the obligations contained in the lease in the course of cross-examination were nonsensical. If she had truly believed that Pheasantland and the lodges were “trespassing” on the water supply then she would of course have said so. She says the opposite.

Mr Alan Walker of Pheasantland wrote to Ms Saunders on 1 December 2018 introducing himself to Ms Saunders and setting out that there was an obligation in the lease for Abbotsley to supply the “chalet land” with water and that there was a separate sub-meter and that Abbotsley had billed in accordance with the readings on that sub-meter for many years, which had been paid in good faith. Mr Walker also pointed out in that email that several of the people on site were elderly and would be quickly, and potentially dangerous, impacted if the water were cut off . It is the same threat that she had been making in 2011 when PI Estates was the intermediate landlord even though, in the interim she had been both supplying and charging for the supply of water.

In response, Ms Saunders wrote to say that she was going to disconnect the water because she was fed up with paying but did not say that she had no obligation to supply the water. It is very clear from an objective reading of that email that Ms Saunders had, by December 2018, decided that she no longer wished to be involved in the supply of water to the “chalet land”. It was nothing to do with her understanding of what her obligations were, she simply did not see it as being in her interests to continue to supply the water and therefore decided that she would stop. She ignored her obligations and ignored the financial benefits she had obtained by entering into the Lease, but simply decided from that point on that she no longer wished to fulfil her obligations. Her situation had changed because of the closure of the golf course and she did not consider she should be made to fulfil her obligations. It is extraordinary behaviour and certainly not what is expected in the course of rational business dealings. Had she genuinely believed that she had no obligation to supply water or that she believed Pheasantland to be trespassing on the water supply then she would have said so. She could, of course, at that stage gone to the court to obtain a determination with respect to what her obligations were. She decided not to do so, but simply try to force her will on others.

Approximately a month later, on 14 January 2019, Ms Saunders wrote to Mr Walker as a director of Pheasantland asserting that:

“We are not obliged to supply you with water. You have the right to free passage of water through the pipes under Abbotsley’s land but we are not obliged to shove water up those pipes ”

Thereafter, on 19 September, Ms Saunders issues an invoice in these terms:

“Management charge at 10% of water invoice in accordance with paragraph 3.27 of your lease. Please note that as a management charge this is standard rated for VAT”

At this time, therefore, having supplied and charged for the supply of water to the “chalet land” for many years, Ms Saunders alleges that there is no obligation on Abbotsley to supply water to the “chalet land”. Up to October 2018 she had accepted that there was an obligation to supply. Subsequently, in January 2019, she was wrongly alleging that there was no obligation to supply and in February 2019 she was saying that she had “had enough and have applied to have my water cut off so that yours can be cut off to.” Faced with this drastic action, Mr Walker was asking her to hold off so that an alternative supply could be investigated. He was plainly concerned that the elderly and vulnerable individuals who occupied properties at Abbotsley Country Homes would not be left without water. Unfortunately, it seems that Ms Saunders saw that as a bending to her wishes. She was not concerned about there being a “water trespass”. She does not mention it. Her concern was with the money she was having to pay for the supply of water with the imposition of the MDD, even though the golf course was no longer operating. Even in September 2019 she was charging a management charge for the supply of water pursuant to the provisions of clause 3.27 of the Lease. Pheasantland in fact paid £9,472.32 to Abbotsley “being the cost to Abbotsley Limited for the water supplied to Abbotsley Country Homes (ACH) from 27 September 2017 to 1 August 2019”. It was not until December 2019, after Anglian Water had pointed out in their letter dated 16 October 2019, that any connection to the supply of water must have been with prior agreement or permission, “or was and is a trespass which you may take lawful steps to abate” that Ms Saunders wrote to her solicitor at the time, Anna Hall of Edmondson Hall, alleging that instead of installing a pipe to the mains for their main supply “they in effect trespassed”.

This exchange with Anglian Water at this time is important in two respects. First, it is the first time that Ms Saunders starts referring to a trespass and it appears that she may have latched on to the suggestion that if it was not agreed or permissive then it was a trespass. Second, Anglian Water do not appear to have any concerns about the potential of a connection into a private supply, saying in terms “all water passing from the main through the meter goes to the supply pipe on your property…” If there was an issue with the provision of mains water through the Abbotsley “supply pipe” this is something the statutory provider would be concerned about if there was a regulatory reason as to why that should not be the arrangement. For the reasons I have already given, the court is not dealing with this unpleaded submission. This is further support for why the court should not be asked to deal with matters that have not been pleaded and properly contested in the court.

Finally, in March 2020, Ms Saunders contended for the first that there is no right under the golf course “it isn’t my fault that your company bought the leasehold interest in the land without checking the easement situation: caveat emptor.” Her arguments supporting this submission are not supported by the actual words of the Lease which contains express provision for the supply of water (clause 3.27) and, for “the right for the free and uninterrupted passage and running of water … from the adjoining property in and through any conduits which are now or may hereafter during the term be in upon through under or over the property.”

Counsel for the claimants has relied upon Rance v Elvin [1985] P&CR 9, where the Court of Appeal considered a conveyance which included a “right of free and uninterrupted flow of water through water pipes situated under the retained land.” In Rance there was provision for the cost of repairing and maintaining the service but no provision made for payment for the supply of water. The claimant sought a declaration that he had an easement for an uninterrupted supply of water. Nicholls J at first instance had noted that it was well established that easements impose negative obligations on owners and occupiers of servient tenements and that the claimant could not succeed because his right to a water supply was incapable of constituting an easement as it imposed a positive obligation on the servient tenement. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal found that on the true construction of the conveyance the dominant tenement did not have a right to the supply of water itself but it had appurtenant to it an easement for the passage of any water coming through the pipes of the servient land and interference with the passage of water through those pies was an interference with the easement, albeit the servient owner had no obligation to ensure that water came into the pipes (see the judgment of Browne-Wilkinson LJ, as he then was) and Sir George Waller:

“… there is an easement with a negative burden, namely to allow water to flow along the pipe and not to damage the pipe. This would include a duty to allow the pipe to remain in the land and a duty not to interfere with it.”

Rance does not help Abbotsley or Ms Saunders in any respect. In this matter there is a contractual obligation on the part of Abbotsley to supply water and a contractual obligation on the part of the tenant, now Pheasantland, to pay for the supply of water together with a management charge to Abbotsley. That is exactly what happened for many years and it was only later that Ms Saunders contended for a different construction to the Lease that she had entered into with the benefit of representation from very experienced property solicitors.

In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the alternative scenario of whether Pheasantland are entitled to a flow of water. For completeness, it is clear that if there were not the contractual provision for a supply then there was an express grant for a right of flow of water from the Abbotsley pipes and that flow could not be interfered with. The cost of any water flowing through the pipe to the “chalet land” being payable by the tenant, Pheasantland, in accordance with clause 3.27.

In the circumstances, the claimants fail in their contentions that there was a trespass on the Abbotsley pipe and that Pheasantland was not entitled to a supply of mains water from the Abbotsley pipe. The submissions on behalf of the Claimants rely heavily upon “mains” meaning the Anglian Water mains. That was not the agreement between Abbotsley and Pheasantland but an ex post facto construct in order for Ms Saunders to seek to excuse her behaviour. Similarly, there is no reference to potable and non-potable water in any of the agreements between the parties. Again, this was a later construct to bolster Ms Saunders’ case. In the letter from Ms Saunders to Pheasantland dated 2 November 2020, she refers to the Lease envisaging two types of water supply – one being the irrigation of the green linked to Abbotsley’s irrigation supply and separately “the 63mm mains across the golf course to be linked to the Anglian Water… You refused to identify where that water mains was laid and why it was never linked to the Anglian Water mains”(my emphasis). It is clear that there were the two supplies and, from Ms Saunders own words, that “mains” is not limited to “Anglian Water mains”. The desperate attempt to confine the “mains” definition to, as counsel submits, Anglian Water pipes is simply incorrect. The irrigation water was connected to allow the infrastructure works to take place. The connection to mains was connection to a mains supply – namely the Abbotsley pipe so that the wooden log cabins on the “chalet land” were habitable.

Consequently, the cases referred to by Claimants’ counsel, Trailfinders v Razuki [1988] 2 EGLR 46, Yeung v Patel [2014] EWCA Civ 481 and Martin v Childs [2002] EWCA Civ 283 again do not assist Abbotsley or Ms Saunders and do not add anything to this case. They all apply in different circumstances. In this case, the parties agreed for the supply of water from Abbotsley and for the payment for the supply of that water. This is an arrangement that operated for years, and both before and after the disagreements with PI Estates in 2011 when Ms Saunders threatened to turn off the water supply: “… their water supply will be turned off. I [Vivien Saunders] supply their water, They failed to pay me.” (see the letter from Lamb Brooks, solicitors for PI Estates dated 18 November 2011).

In response to the issues raised: first, there is no trespass pipe and there has been and is no trespass upon Abbotsley. It was not a “bodge” job as repeatedly asserted by Ms Saunders and the fact that the blue pipe does not only provide the connection for the “chalet land” but also provides a 28 metre connection to the pipe that only benefits Abbotsley and Ms Saunders, as can be seen in the “Survey Solutions” mapping of the area (which has been annotated by Ms Saunders), reveals that this was not some surreptitious activity to allow water to be “purloined”. Mr Gearing, the fifth defendant, gave evidence that Huntingdonshire DC, as the local authority, has no obligation to inspect the works carried out as these were lodges on “chalet land” and where Ms Saunders complains that the work carried out as the infrastructure works was not of the quality she would have expected, that might be her answer. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, she had the right to inspect those works herself.

The claimants are obliged to supply water under the terms of the Lease, the Agreement to Lease and the Schedule of Infrastructure Works provided for connection to the Abbotsley pipe for the supply of mains water to the “chalet land”. The claimants are not entitled to interfere with the supply of water to the “chalet land” and where that has happened that is in breach of the terms of the Lease. There was no trespass. The water has not been unlawfully obtained. There was no “agreed route” as alleged by Ms Saunders to connect with Anglian Water pipes under the golf course and that was not what was being certified by Mr Weller as there is no pipe in that place. Again, had there been surreptitious “purloining” of water as Ms Saunders contends for there would not have been metering of the supply and Ms Saunders would not have been accepting payment for the provision of that water.

I find that Ms Saunders has known throughout that she had an obligation to supply water under the terms of the Lease and that she was to be paid for that supply. She determined that she did not wish to continue to abide by her obligations when the golf course and hotel were no longer operating due to what she says were acts of vandalism followed by a failure of the insurer’s contractors to put right the problems. Once she decided that she did not wish to continue with supplying water to the “chalet land” she constructed an argument, partly as a consequence of Anglian Water’s reference to a “trespass” and partly by making use of the reference of the irrigation supply to enable the infrastructure works to take place, that she had no obligation to supply mains water via the Abbotsley pipe, and that there was a trespass onto Abbotsley’s mains water. None of those allegations of trespass set out in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Particulars of Claim are made out.

In light of the determinations above, there is no requirement for the defendants to rely upon the estoppel arguments. However, as this is a properly pleaded matter it is appropriate, for completeness, that I deal with it.

On behalf of Pheasantland it was pleaded that the claimants encouraged or allowed Pheasantland and/or its predecessors to obtain water from the Abbotsley water supply which caused detriment in that payment was made for the water supply and it was therefore unconscionable for the claimants to assert their legal rights. This is a claim that there was an promissory estoppel or estoppel by convention. This argument was expanded in the first defendant’s skeleton argument where reference was made to paragraph 12.018 of Snell’s Equity (34^th Ed.).

“A general, judicially approved, formulation of the requirements of promissory estoppel is as follows: Where, by his words or conduct one party to a transaction, (A) freely makes to the other (B) a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance that he or she will not enforce his or her strict legal rights, and that promise or assurance is intended to affect the legal relations between them (whether contractual or otherwise) or was reasonably understood by B to have that effect, and, before it is withdrawn, B acts upon it, altering [their] position so that it would be inequitable to permit the first party to withdraw the promise, the promise, the party making the premise or assurance will not be permitted to act inconsistently with it. B must also show that the promise was intended to be binding in the sense that (judged on an objective basis) it was intended to affect the legal relationship between the parties and A either knew or could have reasonably foreseen that B would act on it. Yet B’s conduct need not derive its origin solely from A’s encouragement or representation. The principal issue is whether A’s representation had a sufficiently material influence on B’s conduct to make it inequitable for A to depart from it. ”

The arguments contained in the closing written submissions on behalf of the claimants relate to proprietary estoppel and refer to authorities relevant to that estoppel: namely Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Limited & Anr [2008] 1 WLR 1752, Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776, Davis v Davis [2016] EWCA Civ 463 and Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27. While the determination of Lewison LJ in Davis v Davis is of great assistance when the court needs to consider issues of proprietary estoppel (including reference to both Gillett v Holt and Jennings v Rice), it is not relevant to the issues the court needs to consider in this case.

What needs to be considered is whether Ms Saunders, acting for an on behalf of Abbotsley, encouraged Pheasantland and/or their predecessors in title to obtain mains water from the Abbotsley water supply. In Tinkler v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] UKSC 39, the Supreme Court approved the statement of Lord Steyn in Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd [1998] AC 878:

“ … estoppel by convention may arise where parties to a transaction act on an assumed state of facts or law, the assumption being either shared by them both or made by one and acquiesced in by the other. The effect of an estoppel by convention is to preclude a party from denying the assumed facts or law if it would be unjust to allow him to go back on the assumption. It is not enough that each of the two parties acts on an assumption not communicated to the other.”

It is not necessary, for an estoppel by convention, for there to be a concluded agreement and Ms Saunders, for and on behalf of Abbotsley, represented and allowed Pheasantland and its predecessors to obtain water from the Abbotsley water supply which Ms Saunders knew was being supplied from Abbotsley. For example, on 25 September 2018 after the closure of the golf course, Mr Walker wrote to Ms Saunders expressing sympathy with her for the decision to close the golf course and wishing that she may be able to re-open in the near future: “you’ll appreciate that we are keen to be kept in the loop on any changes, or potential changes, that might impact matters such as our water supply and drainage…”. In response, Ms Saunders thanked Mr Walker for the letter and said that she had to go through litigation with the Course contractors to get the courses up and running again “Could be lengthy litigation but nothing re water or drainage etc changes.” She clearly knew that the water and drainage was through Abbotsley but did not say anything to suggest that this arrangement would not be continuing. Ms Saunders’ knowledge of the supply of water from Abbotsley to the chalet land appears, from the documents that are available, to date back to the early days of the land being developed. In the July 2005 site plan for Norwegian Log Buildings there is reference to both the water supply for the putting green and “Water Supply from Golf Course” – two separate supplies; in the OS map annotated by Tom James in February 2011 where he marks the “Mains Water Supply” across the golf course and the manhole C, with the meter, where the supply enters the chalet land; in the letter to Lamb Brooks on 18 November 2011 she threatens to turn off the water and says “… I supply their water. They failed to pay me.”; and in numerous invoices where Ms Saunders (or previously American Golf) invoice for the supply of water. It is notable that the annotated OS map of 2011 refers to the mains water supply on the Abbotsley land. It is clear that, other than the late attempts in submissions to say that “mains” meant Anglian Water, that anyone was working on that basis. Mains water was the supply of water from the mains (which could be used for drinking, washing etc).

Subsequent to receiving the water bill containing the maximum daily demand (MDD) charge, Ms Saunders acknowledged in her letter to Anglian Water Business on 22 October 2018 that Abbotsley was obliged to supply water from the “main meter” to 24 other properties at PE19 6XN. “The 24 properties we supply all have covenants obliging us to allow them a water supply” and subsequently, in a letter to Pheasantland on 1 December 2018, Ms Saunders told Mr Walker to refer to the lodges as “domestic homes” and that she was no longer prepared to pay for the water and that she was “applying for it to be disconnected.” She then asked for the meter to be read in order that Pheasantland could calculate how much was owed to Abbotsley. While in this letter she is clearly not wanting to continue to pay the monies to Anglian Water or Wave, she was acknowledging that up to that point Abbotsley was supplying the water to the “chalet land” and was being paid for it. That was confirmed by her “Invoice for management charge in relation to water supply” to Pheasantland on 19 September 2019.

Ms Saunders clearly knew that the water to the “chalet land” was being provided by Abbotsley and was compelled to alter her position in her pleadings, acknowledging in her reply to the defence of Pheasantland, that invoices were issued to Pheasantland’s predecessor in title PI Estates between 2012 and 2017 (covering the period 2011 to 2017) establishing attendance at the “chalet land” and the reading of the meter. Extraordinarily, having apparently forgotten this when she gave instructions for the Particulars of Claim to be drafted, she gave instructions for the following pleading:

“C2 [Ms Saunders] now recalls and accepts that in 2011 she became aware that no such pipe had been connected to the Anglian Water mains by the First Defendant’s [Pheasantland] predecessors in title but that they were drawing water from the Abbotsley account. C’s had striven to accommodate the developers to complete the development and at this time C2 viewed this as something relative trivial which could be corrected at a later date and raised invoices for water used on meter readings supplied.”

She did not seek to stop the use of the water from Abbotsley at that time and did not suggest that Pheasantland, or its predecessors, were “purloining” the water.

On 20 February 2012, knowing that Abbotsley were providing water to the chalet land, Ms Saunders wrote to PI Estates purportedly giving “notice to re-enter”. Nowhere in that document did she contend that there was a trespass by “purloining” of water. She acknowledged in evidence that she had not raised water supply as being an issue “because I was a silly old fool…” In my judgment, her failure to mention the water supply “issue” is because it was not an issue, as she accepted – she knew that the chalet land was paying Abbotsley for the water. Similarly, the fact that she did not withhold her consent to the sale of the intermediate lease to Pheasantland in 2017 in accordance with the provisions of clauses 3.14.2.1 and 3.14.3.5 is further evidence that Ms Saunders had no concerns about Abbotsley supplying water to the “chalet land”. In my judgment there was a clear representation by Abbotsley, through the actions of Ms Saunders, that water would be supplied by Abbotsley to the chalet land.

Pheasantland, and PI Estates before as their predecessors, had paid Abbotsley for the provision of the water. Pheasantland contend that is a detriment to them, whereas it is argued on behalf of Ms Saunders that paying for a service that is being received cannot be seen as a detriment and the argument that there is an estoppel must fail at that hurdle. That may have been a strong argument but, with the assistance of the submissions of Ms Berwick, counsel for Pheasantland referred to the principles established by Briggs J in HMRC v Benchdollar Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1310 and reaffirmed by Lord Burrows in Tinkler [2021] UKSC 39, paragraph 63. The common assumption of both Abbotsley and Pheasantland was that the water was being provided by Abbotsley. The lodges were sold and occupied on that basis, the water being provided for by Abbotsley and paid for by Pheasantland and their predecessors. The unilateral removal of that supply by Abbotsley causes clear detriment as properties that are to be lived in are denied the provision of water which has been in place for years. Even if an alternative supply route could be obtained, that would still be a detriment because of the costs involved. Insofar as I need to deal with it, Pheasantland and its predecessors come “with clean hands” having always abided by their obligations.

Consequently, while I am clear in this judgment that the contractual position is that Abbotsley is to supply the water and Pheasantland is to pay for that water supply, an estoppel by convention would otherwise have arisen Ms Saunders is not, and was not, entitled to cut off the supply of water.

As an additional argument, Pheasantland contend that the provisions of clause 5.1 of the fourth deed of variation dated 15 September 2010 absolves Pheasantland of any alleged water trespass. While I do not consider that Pheasantland need to place any reliance on this document, given the contractual obligations of Abbotsley under the terms of the Lease and the other agreements referred to above, it clearly absolves Pheasantland of any breaches of the Lease prior to the purchase of the Lease by Pheasantland’s predecessor PI Estates.

Clause 5.1 provides as follows:

“The Tenant took an assignment of the Lease from the administrators of the immediately former tenant. The Landlord acknowledges and hereby confirms to the Tenant that the Tenant will not have any liabilities to the Landlord whatsoever under the Lease or the Agreement for Lease that preceded it in respect of any breach of the obligations of the tenant thereunder which may have been committed before the date of this deed or for any damages, actions, proceedings, costs, claims, demands and expenses arising from such breach of obligations and liabilities.”

It absolves PI Estates, and subsequently Pheasantland, from any breaches that may have occurred prior to PI Estates’ purchase of the Lease in 2010. It does not apply to any subsequent breaches. As I have found that there has been no trespass with respect to the water supply, it is not a document that Pheasantland need to rely upon.

Ms Saunders has admitted, by way of her pleadings, to turning off the water supply on 23 May 2020, 18 November 2020, 24 January 2022, 24 February 2022, 18 May 2022 (and capped on 20 May 2022), 14 July 2022, 16 July 2022. I find that on each occasion this was a deliberate interference by, or under the instructions of, Ms Saunders. Contrary to her assertions, she was not entitled to interfere with the supply of water. None were a restraint of a trespass.

She accepted that she knew that some of the people who had lodges on the Abbotsley Country Homes land were elderly and vulnerable including Mr and Mrs McDermott and Ms Seiler, who she said that she had first seen during the period of covid and wondered who was “the stick lady”. She also said that she knew that the supply of water through the blue pipe was the only supply of water available to the lodges, but that she was interfering with the supply in order to “chivvy” along the lodge owners to get Mr Walker to find an alternative supply. She denied it was leverage, but quite clearly she was using her control over the water supply so that either she got her way or they received no water. It was extraordinary behaviour. What she was doing was deliberately stopping the supply of an essential resource, which she knew she was obliged to supply, and had supplied for payment over many years, in order to (she thought) force Pheasantland into obtaining an alternative supply. Remarkably she said that she was “not taking water away to impact the health and well-being of the people living in the lodges and that her dispute was with the first defendant” revealing an extraordinary lack of understanding of what she was doing and complete absence of empathy

In my judgment, and having heard all the evidence and submissions in this case, the only reason Ms Saunders cut off the supply was to get her own way because she had unilaterally decided that she no longer wished to be bound by the terms of the lease she had entered into for her own financial gain. It seems to me that she is incapable of understanding an alternative viewpoint than her own and, for reasons I am in no place to diagnose, she cannot accept that she may be wrong. She said that it was “difficult to understand what could be done to resolve the matter” but, despite her great familiarity with litigation – both with the cases she has brought against various parties and her 5 years of being a solicitor – at no point did she instruct solicitors to have the issue resolved in court with an application to have the meaning of the lease determined. It would have been an easy and sensible solution for her either to go back to the solicitors she had instructed when entering in the agreements to Lease this land, Wilsons, or to turn to the solicitors she has now been using when entering into the “Promotion Agreement” with respect to selling off other parts of her land. It has come to this, with the many years of distress caused to the lodge owners, before the determination of the court can be made.

The interference with the water supply by Ms Saunders for and on behalf of Abbotsley was a wrongful interference with the lodge owners’ entitlements under the terms of the Lease. While it is clear that Mr Walker, as a director of Pheasantland, sought to appease Ms Saunders by communicating with Anglian Water on 7 December 2018 for the purpose of investigating the possibility of obtaining an independent water supply, that was not something that Pheasantland and the lodge owners needed to do as they already had their water supply in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

The first time that the water Ms Saunders admits to cutting off the water was on 23 May 2020 when she requested one of contractors to turn the water off at the stopcock. Ms Saunders says that was on notice, but I have not seen any such notice. That first interference with the supply of water to the lodge land was dealt with by the police attending Abbotsley which meant that Ms Saunders was compelled to turn the water back on. Simon Jefferies and Ms Saunders accompanied the police to the main road and an Anglian Water operative turned on the water at the inspection chamber on the golf course. Simon Jefferies complained in his written evidence that the inspection chamber did not belong to Anglian Water, it was on Abbotsley land, and they had no authority to turn it on. Plainly the police were concerned about this interference with the water supply to the Abbotsley lodges and, had Ms Saunders refused to turn on the water at that time, it is apparent from what she had been told that she would then have been arrested.

It is clear that Ms Saunders was extremely angry that the police should be involved at all with endeavouring to ensure that the water supply was maintained to the lodges and took steps to prohibit their involvement. So far as Ms Saunders was concerned, cutting off the water supply to the lodges was a way in which she felt that she could force the lodge owners to bend to her will and install the separate water supply that she felt that they should have. She could not cope with the fact that the lodge owners were not simply giving way to her and were standing up to her wishes but, of course, the involvement of the police was “clipping her wings” and stopping her doing exactly what she wanted. Ms Saunders was angered by the resistance of the lodge owners when the police supported the rights of the lodge owners against her wishes to control how water was to be supplied. Ms Saunders is of course correct that the police will not become involved in a purely civil dispute but, if there is an anticipation of a criminal offence, such as a breach of the peace - a common law offence, then the police would become involved. In this case, as has already been set out, matters became sufficiently heated between her and others who lived at Abbotsley that Ms Saunders was convicted of assaulting two different people, who lived at Abbotsley, on different occasions. Ms Saunders was not “inconvenienced” by abiding by the terms of the Lease and supplying water to the “chalet land” in that the defendants have always been ready and willing and able to pay for any water supplied by Ms Saunders, a payment Ms Saunders previously accepted. It is not clear what actionable wrong is asserted even if she were able to establish that she were “inconvenienced.” If the claimants are obliged to supply water to the owners of the lodges, either by reason of the terms of the Lease or by reason of an estoppel, then it was Ms Saunders who was interfering with their contractual rights.

The second time the water was turned off by the claimants was on 18 November 2020. Again, if the terms of the lease compel the claimants to provide water, or if there is an estoppel prohibiting the claimants to supply water, then Ms Saunders cannot simply shut off the water.

On both 23 May 2020 and 18 November 2020, it was the police who compelled Ms Saunders to reinstate the supply of water. Without that compulsion she clearly would have left the water turned off ,which undermines her case that she was shutting off the water purely for the purpose of investigating a leak.

The third time the water was turned off by the claimants was on 24 January 2022. It was said that, again, the fact that the Blackalls, who admit to this action, turned the water back on was an “inconvenience”. It was no such thing. Abbotsley was obliged to supply the water and Pheasantland was willing and able to pay for the supply of water, as they and PI Estates before them, had done in the past – the monies being accepted by Ms Saunders on behalf of Abbotsley.

The next time the water was turned off was on 24 February 2022, when Mr Simon Jefferies turned off the water on the instructions of Ms Saunders. Mr Jefferies denied that he had turned off the water when confronted by Mr Lance Honeywill, but that was a lie. The frustration and anger expressed by Mr Honeywill and the serious nature of the language he used does not reflect well on Mr Honeywill, as he knows. The threat to “fucking strangle” Mr Jefferiesdoes not seem to be taken seriously by him and I am satisfied that it was never meant literally. Certainly, those words did not make Mr Jefferies decide to tell the truth and Mr Jefferies was unapologetic before the court that he had lied about the turning off the water. It is notable that he did not mention his actions on that day in his witness statement. That deliberate turning off of the water was not on notice, as is alleged, and was contrary to the obligation to supply water. There was no “inconvenience” to the claimants as the defendants were willing and able to pay, as they always had.

Mr Jefferies does not say which year he is talking about, but I take it to be in May 2022, when one of the men who works with the sheep on Abbotsley land, called “Shaun the Sheep” by Ms Saunders, inadvertently cut through the pipe that supplied water to the lodges. It appears that he had been instructed to look for the pipe supplying the water to the “chalet land” and was using a mini-digger for the purpose. It is difficult to know what precisely happened, as Ms Saunders chose not to call this individual to give evidence, and it is not known whether he was asked to cut through the pipe. It is undoubtedly unfortunate that he was not the last to cut through the water pipe. After the cutting through of the pipe in May 2022, it was repaired by Mr Gearing, acting for and on behalf of Pheasantland and in furtherance of the covenants contained in the Lease to “ repair and maintain”, by instructing a specialist contractor. Mr Gearing entered onto the Abbotsley land on that occasion for the purpose of repairing the pipe and reinstating the supply of water to the lodge owners, acting in accordance with the direction given by Pheasantland that all the owners and occupiers needed to work together to maintain and repair the conduits on the Abbotsley land.

On 19 May 2022 Ms Saunders wrote to the lodge owners to say “it is with very sincere regret that Abbotsley has today disconnected the pipework through which Pheasantland has been trespassing into Abbotsley main water supply pipe. It cannot physically be reinstated. The Caravan Site – because that is technically its status – will no longer be able to purloin Abbotsley’s water.” She further stated that the pipe was in a completely different position from the one Alan Walker has claimed: “He has misled you and he has misled us.” That was untrue, not only could the pipe be reinstated, but the location of the pipe was not as represented by Ms Saunders but as had been suggested by Mr Walker of Pheasantland, as was established by the professional survey undertaken by Survey Solutions. It is difficult to understand the motivation behind the misrepresentation (which Ms Saunders denied) other than a genuine error (which Ms Saunders does not concede) combined with an inability to accept error, or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Mr James Bradbury, who works as a plant operator for Highways England and lives in Stoke, came to give evidence about the occasion when he was employed by Ms Saunders to dig on the Abbotsley golf course in order to expose a water pipe. Mr Darren Honeywill gave evidence that before Mr Bradbury turned on site, there was another digger driver who had been employed to expose the pipe. When it was explained to him what had been happening and he was becoming involved in this dispute between the parties over the supply of water, he took fright once he was told of the potential impact of the dispute over water and said he wanted nothing more to do with it, and left to go home.

Mr Bradbury had come to know Ms Saunders when he had worked on the nearby A14 when it was being widened and improved and had been allowed to stay in his caravan on the land for a number of months. He said that when he finished working on the A14 and gone to work on a project in Lancashire he had remained in touch with Ms Saunders. He made it clear that his work for Highways England engaged in the construction of roads, motorways and A roads, and not for water companies so that his work with respect to water pipes is finding them.

In July 2022, Ms Saunders contacted him to see if he could go to Abbotsley for a weekend for the purpose of exposing a water pipe. He said he was not paid for the job, just given £100 off what he would have otherwise have paid for staying on the Abbotsley land when working on the A428. He said that he was just doing it as a favour.

Mr Bradbury also said that Ms Saunders did not inform him that some of the people on the lodge land were ill and that some were in their 80s, he did know that many were retired. He said that he had not been informed that water had been supplied from the pipe on the golf course to the lodges for many years, that it had been metered and that it was their only supply of water. He said that what he had been informed was that the water pipe had been “tapped” into the hotel supply and that his job was to dig down in order to find where the pipe was laid. If Mr Bradbury is correct in his account then he was doing this work unaware of the consequences of his behaviour.

He said that Ms Saunders hired a 8-tonne excavator for the work. His job was to “find the extent of the pipe”. Mr Simon Jefferies, who also lives in his static caravan on Ms Saunders’ land, acted as his “banks man” in order to check for the location of the digger bucket. Mr Bradbury said that he excavated back from the boundary and tracked the blue pipe “slowly and carefully towards the bridge.” He said he found it was joined into a grey plastic pipe right beside an outflow for effluent. Mr Bradbury said that the connection appeared to him to be unprofessional, that there was no inspection chamber and nothing to indicate the line of the pipe and joints with different size pipes. Mr Bradbury was, of course, not called as an expert for his opinion on water pipes. As he accepted, that is not in any event his field of knowledge. He is someone who is skilled in digging trenches. I am only concerned about his factual evidence about what he saw; the same as with all the factual witnesses. His evidence was consistent with Mr Jefferies’ evidence that a substantial part of the 50mm grey pipe had been removed on both sides of the stream and replaced with the 63mm blue pipe which thereby provided a supply of water to the hotel and manor house together with a supply to the lodges by the part of the blue pipe joined there.

Mr Bradbury says that “unfortunately I snagged the pipe with the bucket and we had to turn off the water. We didn’t have suitable fittings to repair it. Vivien hadn’t anticipated that we would damage it; my brief was to find a pipe, not work on it.” He recognised that if, when working for Highways England, he were to break a water pipe then he would report it immediately, and it would be fixed immediately as it was a service. Mr Simon Jefferies said that Mr Bradbury was very upset that he had cut the pipe and had commented that if he had done something like that at work then he would be called in for a drug and alcohol test. Mr Bradbury said he did not recall that he said that precisely, but he did acknowledge that he would have been called in by his employers.

This break to the pipe, and the consequent removal of the supply of water to the lodges, occurred on 16 July 2022. The temperatures at that time reached above 37/38 degrees Celsius (38.7 degrees in Cambridge on 25 July 2022) and a red weather warning – risk to life – had been issued. Mr Bradbury said that because of the break he had to cut off the water, even though he was aware that would cut off the water to the lodges. He said it was not his job to get the parts to fix the pipe. Simon Jefferies and Ms Saunders were also on site and Simon Jefferies says that it was Ms Saunders who turned the water off in the Inspection Chamber.

In the early evening, he records that “we” filled in part of the trench where he had allegedly “accidentally” nicked the pipe, leaving the water turned off. It is not clear to me why he decided it was appropriate to fill in the trench in those circumstances. As he says his role was merely to find the location of the pipe and not to cut off the water then it would be natural for the pipe to be left exposed in order that it could be fixed. It therefore seems that Mr Bradbury decided of his own volition at that point that it was appropriate, the water having been cut off by Ms Saunders, for steps be taken to inhibit the possibility of restoring the water, or he was told to do that by someone else. From all the evidence that I have heard in this case, I am convinced that Mr Bradbury was at all times working under the instructions of Ms Saunders who was being supported and backed up by Mr Jefferies. Mr Bradbury says that a gentleman came out to fix the pipe and he left the lodge owners to it and went up to the hotel. Mr Jefferies had identified Mr Gearing, Mr Blackall and Mr Steele as having come onto the golf course in order to video and photograph them and Ms Saunders had told them to leave (he says politely) and they had done so. Mr Bradbury, an outsider to this, said in the witness box that he had “felt for them”, although that was not something he mentioned in his witness statement. He also said in the witness box for the first time that he was concerned about the situation and that he was aware that it was a hot weekend and that the lodge owners would need water. He said that he asked Simon Jefferies whether he was really cutting the water off. That indicates that on 16 July 2022 the cutting of the water pipe was not inadvertent but deliberate and that is supported by the evidence of Darren Honeywill who said that when they went to repair the pipe on 16 July 2022 he found that the pipe had been cut twice (it was not just one cut) and neatly flush up to the end of the trench so that it was not easy to repair and he had to dig around the pipe in order for there to be the room to repair. That is no accident but a deliberate act, destroying the pipe and preventing either supply or flow of water.

Mr Jefferies says that Ms Saunders told him that overnight, at 3am, she had intruders and was “quite shaken”. I accept that Mr Jefferies is merely repeating what he was told by Ms Saunders. Mr Jefferies had no independent knowledge of such an incident. Mr Bradbury made no mention of a disturbance overnight in his witness statement but then referred to it in his oral evidence – he said that there were three or four male voices including “one young lad” who was quite worked up. He said they were saying “we’re coming to get you”. He said he was “staying in his room” but did not say where he was. This is a very confusing account when compared to what was said by Ms Saunders in her evidence, which I have dealt with when dealing with her evidence and the evidence of Colm, against whom she specifically makes this allegation, as well as Darren Honeywill. Mr Bradbury failed to mention an obvious identifying feature, namely Colm’s distinctive accent. In my judgment, the reason he did not do so is because Colm was not there and he was not behaving in the way alleged by Ms Saunders. Darren Honeywill was also not there. He is not a “young lad” (the only “young lad” around Abbotsley was Joe Jefferies) but may have been viewed as such by Ms Saunders. There was no involvement of young people with the defendants. Mr Bradbury seemed to hit his stride in his evidence when he started to say that after what had happened overnight, while he had felt sorry for the lodge owners when the water was first cut off due to his “inadvertent” cutting of the pipe, he no longer felt sorry for them and that they deserved what they were getting. Having seen all the evidence and all the witnesses, I conclude that this story of bad behaviour was made to give justification for the behaviour of Ms Saunders, Mr Jefferies and Mr Bradbury cutting off the water to the lodge owners and leaving it cut off. I do not find Mr Bradbury’s account to be credible. It was a constructed story which too closely followed the same wording that had been given by others, when he had not mentioned it himself in his witness statement. I find that Ms Saunders is not only willing to make up that the water supply expressly provided for by the Lease was a wrongful “purloining” of water but is also willing to attempt to mislead by alleging that others engaged in bad behaviour to cover up her own bad behaviour.

The other person who mentions the alleged incident involving Colm and Darren Honeywill in the early hours of 2022 is Mr Verdier. He makes this assertion in his second statement, which he disavowed in his evidence when he said he could not remember the statement and that he had only signed because it was put in front of him. Clearly, in light of Ms Saunders’ own assertion that Mr Verdier has dementia, and the circumstances in which the second statement was taken in Ms Saunders’ own property with her being present for at least part of the time, this statement cannot be relied upon. He does not know the date of the incident and if it was during the early hours of 17 July 2022, after the water had been cut off by Ms Saunders on 16 July 2022 and the trench exposing the pipe filled back in. Mr Verdier gives a different time and makes an allegation of drunkenness against a man who does not drink because of his bi-polar condition. Again, where there is a dispute between Darren Honeywill and Colm’s account, and the allegation provided by Mr Verdier and Ms Saunders, I reject entirely the account given by Ms Saunders and Mr Verdier. I accept that Mr Verdier is confused and suggestible. In my judgment, Ms Saunders made this particular allegation in an attempt to get Colm and Darren Honeywill into trouble and in order for them to look particularly bad. Darren Honeywill had not even met Ms Saunders before 16/17 July. His first encounter with her was on 30 July 2022 when she used her car to “encourage” him out of her way. Making this false allegation is an example of Ms Saunders seeking to manipulate the court to operate as a weapon against the defendants. If her false account were to be believed it would not only support her claim that there had been “serious anti-social behaviour” but would undermine their prospects of relief from forfeiture and, on a more immediate basis, deflect from what they were doing, which was to restore the water supply.

Mr Bradbury said that he, Ms Saunders and Mr Simon Jefferies all returned to the site on the following morning at 6am in order, he said, to excavate more of the pipe. He said that the pipe had in fact been dug up during the night and repaired with fixings in order to keep the water flowing, Mr Jefferies said that Ms Saunders told Mr Bradbury to cut through the pipe, remove the fittings, and fill in the trench for the entire length of the excavation. In either case Ms Saunders deliberately cut the water supply to the lodges. Again.

Consequently, even if the initial cut on 16 July 2022 had been an accident, it certainly was no accident to stop the water on 17 July 2022. Not only was the water cut and the pipe capped off but the trench was filled in so that, as Mr Jefferies said, the cut and capped pipe was hidden. This was a deliberate act on the part of Ms Saunders to remove the water supply from the lodge owners. It was an act of cruelty when it was dangerously hot and was recklessly carried out for the purpose of trying to control the lodge owners and to force them to act against Mr Walker, the director at Pheasantland against whom she had taken the greatest dislike and who she held responsible for not bending to her wishes. She commented in court that she was endeavouring to “chivvy” the lodge owners in order to get Mr Walker to agree to what she wanted. It was extraordinary behaviour.

Despite Ms Saunders being served with a Community Protection Notice on 18 July 2022 demanding that she turned the water on to supply the lodges within 24 hours, she did not do so, but took steps to appeal the notice which was then set aside. The lodge owners were thereafter left without water for a full 10 days during a red warning heat wave, including those lodge owners who were elderly and ill. When considering that in an objective and rational way, the inhumanity is obvious. Even taking the claimants’ case at its highest, Abbotsley were being paid for the provision of water to the “chalet land”. If Ms Saunders genuinely believed that there was a trespass and no-one was agreeing with what she wanted to happen, she could have brought the matter before the court for determination at that time. The impact of Ms Saunders’ behaviour at that time has been considerable as is set out in the evidence section of this judgment.

Subsequent to the filling in of the whole trench Mr Bradbury says he was then confronted by a man holding a screwdriver who was threatening him and who “seemed intent on stabbing me.” He says that when he returned to the digger, having gone to the Ms Saunders’ house as refuge, he found that the onboard computer had been damaged. The man he accuses of this behaviour is Mr Stephen Newland, who settled his case with Ms Saunders and is therefore not someone who I have heard from in person although his defence to the claim makes it clear that he had sold his lodge (lodge 11) Abbotsley Country Homes in November 2022. While he was not giving evidence, having sold his lodge and settled this claim, in his witness statement he says that the communications from Ms Saunders, coupled with her action to stop the supply of water and interfere with the sale of his property, had caused him immense distress leading to an adverse reaction in his health and well-being. While I can only give Mr Newland’s statement limited weight as he has not been subjected to challenge by cross examination, his account of the impact of Ms Saunders’ behaviour is remarkably similar to that of the other people who own lodges. Mr Newland strenuously denied the allegations made against him and notes that the perpetrator had been described as having a tattoo on his collarbone, which Mr Newland denies having (a photograph being submitted to establish his lack of a tattoo). Mr Bradbury says he was shaken up by this incident and that he returned to Preston shortly thereafter. I am not satisfied on the evidence I have heard that the incident occurred at all. I have no evidence to support the damage to the digger in the form of reports to the hiring company or photographs of damage, which is very surprising given the degree to which all activity on the Abbotsley land was photographed, and the fact that the purpose of exposing the pipe, which led to the significant interference with the supply of water, was allegedly in order to be able to photograph the location of the pipe. I am also not satisfied that Mr Newland had anything to do with this incident, even if it occurred. Certainly the police were not interested, and this would have been, had it happened, a very serious threat followed by significant criminal damage. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that this is another example of Ms Saunders not only setting out to deliberately mislead the court but getting those who work for her to do the same. There is no police record of this incident having been reported and Darren Honeywill expressed his surprise that such a serious allegation had not been dealt with by the police in any way – either the serious threats to Mr Bradbury or the alleged criminal damage to the digger.

Mr Newland set out in his defence, which is in the trial bundle before me, that he was interviewed by the police but was not charged with anything and that he sold the lodge because he found Ms Saunders intimidating and that the final intimidating letter he received was dated 26 September 2022. Unfortunately, that letter is not in the bundle. Mr Newland set out that he had sold 11 Abbotsley Country Homes and that he has found Ms Saunders extremely intimidating, threating (sic.) and heard her ‘wish lodge owners were dead’…The communication from Ms VI Saunders, coupled with her actions to stop the supply of water and interfere with the sale of my property has caused me immense distress leading to an adverse reaction in my health and well being.” As Mr Newland settled the claim against him I do not place any significant weight on either his statement or his defence. These are documents in the trial, however, their relevance is the consistency (or otherwise) with the other evidence I have heard.

Some of the lodge owners were involved in excavating and restoring the water pipe – namely John Gearing, Keith Blackall and Virginia Melesi. Mrs Seiler was there but I accept her evidence that she had happened upon the incident and was genuinely confused. That technically would be a trespass onto the Abbotsley land but once on the land she assisted the others by recording the activities of those who were acting on behalf of Pheasantland to fix the pipe that Ms Saunders had wrongfully cut and capped, as the police had advised them to record as much. Mr Gearing, Mr Blackall and Ms Melesi all accept that they were present on the Abbotsley land in order to find and repair the water pipe. They say they were entitled to do so in accordance with the terms of the Lease, having been asked to assist by Pheasantland.

The next incident with respect to the water pipes was on 6 August 2022 when Ms Saunders employed a digger driver and a linesman to locate and expose the pipework. The lodge owners were understandably nervous about whether another digger driver and linesman on the Abbotsley land meant the possibility of the water being cut off again. Ms Saunders was concerned that there was a trespass by both Darren Honeywill and then Virginia Melesi and then, on 11 September 2022, a further trespass by Mr Gearing, Mr and Mrs Blackall, Mr Steele and Ms Melesi, filling in the trenches exposing the pipework. Ms Saunders was not in the county at the time this happened but, having called the police as an emergency 999 call, the police sent out an officer who declined to interfere. In my judgment there had not been any civil trespass on this occasion. The residents and owners of the lodges at Abbotsley Country Homes were working under the auspices of Pheasantland who were endeavouring to ensure that the water, which had been cut off on the instruction of Ms Saunders, could be reinstated and maintained.

The behaviour of the individual defendants restoring the water supply, that had been wrongfully interfered with or stopped by the actions of Ms Saunders and her contractors on behalf of Abbotsley, was reasonable and appropriate behaviour for the purpose of maintaining the water supply to the “chalet land”. Clause 3.7.1 of the Lease contains a positive covenant on the part of the tenant, or intermediate landlord – now Pheasantland – to “put and keep the Conduits in good and substantial repair and condition and whenever necessary to rebuild and renew the same.” As a consequence, every time the water supply was interfered with by Ms Saunders or her agents, Pheasantland had a positive obligation to repair, rebuild and renew in accordance with the terms of the Lease. Pheasantland is a company of leasehold owners and therefore it is not at all surprising that Pheasantland requested the lodge owners to carry out work on behalf of Pheasantland in repairing any damaged or cut pipes. It was the most cost and time efficient way to restore the water supply wrongly cut off by Ms Saunders. There is nothing in the Lease to suggest that the granting of an authority or licence to carry out that work requires written permission. The individual plot owners and Mr Walker of Pheasantland all agreed that permission had been granted by Pheasantland (albeit not by him as he was not always in the country) to fulfil the obligations to carry out the works required under the terms of the Lease as a consequence of Ms Saunders’ actions.

The specific allegations of trespass contained in the particulars of claim that a number of the individual defendants and directors of the first defendant had entered onto the land in order to repair the damage caused by Ms Saunders and in order to reinstate the water supply to the chalet land and film the behaviour of Ms Saunders and her contractors all falls within the permission granted by Pheasantland to ensure compliance with their obligations under the Lease. All those allegations of trespass where individual lodge owners were involved in repairing and reinstating the water supply when it had been interfered with by, or on behalf of Ms Saunders, are dismissed.

While Ms Saunders complains about the engagement of the police in this matter, this was because the water had been cut off by her – which was contrary to her contractual obligations. It is a matter for the police as to why they decided to attend and why they threatened to arrest her if she did not turn the water back on, and the police are not party to these proceedings. It is likely that there was concern that there could be a breach of the peace or some other public order offence. The allegations that complaints to the police, when their legitimate supply of water had been cut off by Ms Saunders, amount to harassment or nuisance on the part of the individual defendants and directors of Pheasantland are misplaced and are dismissed.

There is no evidence from Ms Saunders that any individual or individuals deposited two disposable cigarette lighters and a vial of weedkiller onto her property. Given the other occasions where Ms Saunders has sought to mislead the court I do not accept her evidence that this ever happened and in my judgment this was said to deliberately damage the defendants. The allegation is dismissed.

The particulars of claim makes a number of unspecified allegations of trespass, nuisance and harassment. Where the pleading is vague, for example allegations commencing with the words “on occasions too numerous to particularise”, those allegations are dismissed as they are impossible to counter. With respect to the specific allegations, the evidence is set out in the evidence section above and the findings are as follows.

Ms Saunders alleged that Ms Holliman trespassed on the sheep field “on occasions too numerous to particularise.” Given the lack of particularisation I would dismiss this allegation in any event. Ms Holliman had dealt with this allegation in her evidence which is set out in the evidence section of this judgment. The sheep field is completely enclosed by fencing with no access gate or stile. Ms Holliman is only 5 feet 4 inches and, at the time of her defence, she was 73. She is now 75 and even though in good health, having seen the sheep field on my site visit I cannot see how she could possibly go into the sheep field as alleged. Ms Saunders has wrongfully barred the way into the Jenny Wisson Wood, which is the only other way in which the sheep field could be accessed and I find that this allegation of trespass is not made out and is a further attempt to undermine an individual defendant without any justification.

Ms Saunders made specific allegations in her particulars of claim against Mr Gearing, Mr Laurence Honeywill, Mrs Holliman, and Mr Steele that they had unlawfully trespassed upon Jenny Wisson wood. The basis of that allegation is that Ms Saunders asserts, and continues to assert, that the Jenny Wisson wood was not open to the public. The defendants denied the allegations of trespass on the Jenny Wisson wood on the basis that it was open to the public further to a section 106 agreement that Ms Saunders entered into for the purpose of obtaining planning permission, and the financial advantages of that planning permission, for the development of the “chalet land”. The issue as to whether the Jenny Wisson wood was open to the public was therefore a matter placed before the court to determine.

As Ms Saunders does not agree to anyone entering the woodland and, for the individual defendants to be able to use that woodland and it not to be a trespass, the defendants need to establish (on the civil standard) that the section 106 agreement entered into by Ms Saunders is still in force. Ms Saunders denies that is the case.

During the hearing it became apparent that there had not been complete disclosure with respect to the Jenny Wisson wood. As a consequence of my raising that issue, Ms Saunders contended that the court should seek, at the end of the trial, third party disclosure from the local planning authority – Huntingdonshire District Council. I did not consider it was part of the role of the court to fill in evidential gaps on the part of one party and refused. A party who brings an allegation has the burden of establishing that allegation is made out by calling the evidence necessary to satisfy that burden. That has to be carried out at the trial and a party cannot simply decide that, because they look as if they have failed to satisfy the burden, they would like to have another go:

“The trial is not a dress rehearsal. It is the first and last night of the show”: per Lewison LJ in Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, [114].

Ms Saunders did not want the court to make a determination on an issue which she placed before the court, but instead wanted to continue to contest the issue outside the court proceedings and potentially continue to allege that the defendants are trespassing on Abbotsley land. That position offends against the principles of there being finality in litigation. All the parties to this litigation, including the unrepresented defendants, are entitled to the determination of the court with respect to the matters that are put before the court. Otherwise, particularly given the behaviour of Ms Saunders before, during, and after this trial, there is a real danger that Ms Saunders will continue raising arguments and difficulties for the defendants with respect to the use of the Jenny Wisson wood. While Ms Saunders has sought to avoid any determination on this issue by withdrawing her allegations about the trespass on the Jenny Wisson wood, there has not been any formal discontinuance pursuant to the provisions of CPR 38 and she has not withdrawn her claim for an injunction “restraining the defendants from trespassing on the land of the Claimants including Footpaths 5, 10 and 11” or the alternative injunction “restraining any and all of the Defendants from trespassing the land of the Claimants at any time including leaving Footpaths 5, 10 and 11 or to go beyond the metal gate on Footpath 5 beyond which is Eynesbury Hardwicke Manor and or leaving garden or other waste on the First Claimant’s land.” In order for this court to be able to determine whether an injunction ought to be granted and, if so, the extent of that injunction, the court will need to consider whether there is a public right to enter the Jenny Wisson wood as the Jenny Wisson wood is part of the Abbotsley land and therefore an area over which Ms Saunders still seeks injunctive relief.

Further, while it was clear from the closing submissions of the unrepresented defendants affected by this issue, that they are pleased that Ms Saunders is no longer pursuing these particular allegations of trespass on the Jenny Wisson wood, they are disappointed that she persisted with them for so many years and that she acted in the way that she did. Ms Saunders has barred access to the woodland by placing obstacles across the entrance and it was clear to me from that site visit that it had been made very difficult to access the Jenny Wisson Wood and it was clearly not open to the public as it should be. I am satisfied from the evidence before me that, on or about 28 October 2022, Mr Joe Jeffries (when he was still a child) used a mechanical digger to dig a deep hole in front of the access to the Jenny Wisson Wood. The only reason he would have done so is either that, as a boy aged about 15, he had been told to do so by his father, Mr Simon Jefferies, or by Ms Saunders as the sole director of the owner of the land. It was plainly an extremely dangerous, foolish and short-sighted thing to do. It could have caused serious injury, or worse, to anyone falling into that unmarked hole and potentially left Abbotsley liable to a claim under the Occupier’s Liability Act. Fortunately, no-one did fall into the hole but it was another example of the steps being taken to prohibit the lodge owners from exercising their rights as members of the public to use the Jenny Wisson Woods.

Mr Gearing, who is now unrepresented, was represented at the time of the drafting of his defence which is pleaded by counsel. The defence sets out that his entry into the Jenny Wisson wood was pursuant to the section 106 agreement, that the actions he took were to restore his access to the Jenny Wisson wood, and that he had a legal right to be on the Jenny Wisson wood. In order to determine his defence, the court needs to consider whether he is correct in his assertions that the Jenny Wisson wood is open to the public because of the section 106 agreement. Consequently, while Ms Saunders has made it clear that she does not want any determination of this court with respect to the legitimacy of members of the public entering it, and she has withdrawn the allegations of trespass against these defendants in order to try to avoid a determination, she is not the only party before the court and the issue remains live.

Ms Saunders has made 100 individual allegations of trespass against individual lodge owners and occupiers. A number of those allegations have now been withdrawn (including with respect to the Jenny Wisson wood). Ms Saunders has made further allegations that the conduct of the individual defendants amounts to common law nuisance; and that the totality of the conduct of the individual defendants amounts to harassment contrary to sections 1 and 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and that the defendants, and each one of them, knew or ought to have known that their behaviour would cause alarm, distress and cause anxiety to Ms Saunders or to Abbotsley’s employees, visitors and agents.

Given the detail of the evidence recorded in the specific evidence section of this judgment and my findings with respect to the interference with the water supply and the Jenny Wisson wood, it is possible to deal with the individual allegations in summary form, following the 30 pages of schedule laid out in leading counsel’s closing submissions on behalf of Abbotsley and Ms Saunders.

The allegations of trespass contained in paragraphs 29(1), 29(2), 29(3), 29(4), 29(5), 29(6), 29(7), 29(8), 29(9), 29(10), 29(11) relate to the occasions when Ms Saunders, or those instructed by her, wrongly interfered with the supply of water to Abbotsley Country Homes. There was no trespass when individuals, with the authority of Pheasantland, went onto Abbotsley in order to repair and maintain the conduits so as to restore the supply of water. Despite what is set out in the closing submissions of counsel, the evidence from individual defendants and from the directors of Pheasantland was that there was permission for individuals to go onto Abbotsley to remedy the wrongful interference with the water supply. There has been no act of harassment against Ms Saunders whenever an individual defendant has contacted the police, or been spoken to by the police and asked for a statement, with respect to Ms Saunders’ interference with the supply of water. It was entirely appropriate for the defendants to inform the police, and give statements to the police when asked to do so. It is entirely unclear as to why Ms Saunders and those acting on her behalf consider that an individual should not be entitled to speak to the police. There was no inconvenience to Abbotsley who have always been paid, or offered payment, for the cost of the supply of water.

The allegation of trespass contained in paragraph 29(12) lacks particularisation and cannot be responded to as it is not possible to know who the allegation is being made against. The allegation has properly been withdrawn. The allegation contained in paragraph 29(13) was not one that could have been challenged given the lack of specificity and no individual defendant had the allegation made against them.

The allegations against Mr Blackall contained in paragraphs 29(14), 29(15), 29(16), 29(17), 29(18) and 29(19) do not amount to trespass or harassment. Mr Blackall was assisting in the repairing and maintenance of conduits which had been wrongfully interfered with by Ms Saunders and was acting under the authority of Pheasantland. When he was filming Ms Saunders and her contractors this was in order to create a physical record of what was happening in accordance with the advice of the police and in response to the photographing and filming by Ms Saunders of the defendants. All the allegations are dismissed.

The allegations made against Mrs Blackall contained in paragraphs 29(20) and (21) have both been withdrawn in trial and are therefore dismissed. Mrs Blackall has, of course, had to face those allegations until they were withdrawn.

The allegations made against Mr Gearing contained in paragraphs 29(22), (23), (24) and (25) are that he trespassed on the Jenny Wisson wood. For the reasons I have set out, the Jenny Wisson wood is open to the public and there has been no trespass by Mr Gearing. The allegations are now withdrawn by Ms Saunders and are therefore dismissed. With respect to the removal of the cameras, I am satisfied that this was not Mr Gearing and this allegation is not made out in any event. With respect to the allegations against Mr Gearing contained in paragraphs 29(26), (27), (29), (31), (33), (34), and (35) Ms Saunders alleges trespass on the Abbotsley land where Mr Gearing has been involved in repairing or maintaining the conduits on the Abbotsley land either on his own or with others and pursuant to the authority of Pheasantland. These are not acts of trespass as Ms Saunders had improperly interfered with the supply of water to Abbotsley Country Homes. Paragraph 29(28) is an allegation that Mr Gearing stepped out in front of her car. Mr Gearing denied that this happened and, given my findings of Ms Saunders willingness to mislead the court for the purpose of undermining the individual defendants (take, for example, the false allegations against Darren Honeywill and the tea incident) I prefer his evidence to hers and find the allegation is not established. I find that Mr Gearing did make comments suggesting that the water to Jenny Wisson’s house should be cut off (the allegation contained in paragraph 29(30)). In my judgment this was an empty threat made in frustration when Ms Saunders was cutting off the water to Abbotsley Country Homes, without consideration of the damage to elderly and vulnerable people.

The allegation in paragraph 29(32) is made out to the extent that Mr Gearing was concerned with what Joe Jefferies was doing given his previous involvement in interfering with the supply of water. I do not find that there was any confrontation and Mr Gearing was acting pursuant to the authority provided by Pheasantland to protect the conduits on the Abbotsley land by checking what was happening. Even if this could be found to be a trespass, no damages arise.

With respect to the allegation contained in paragraph 29(36), Mr Gearing does not accept that the wheel of his car may have strayed off the concrete road when he turned around in his car. If it did then it is difficult to understand why anyone would be bringing a claim about it. It is not something where any damages could be awarded, even if it happened and I do not consider it gives any support to Ms Saunders other allegations of being harassed.

With respect to the allegation in paragraph 29(37) that Mr Gearing said that Ms Saunders should be sectioned, there is obviously a concern expressed by Mr Gearing that Ms Saunders suffers from personality disorder which leads her to behave in the way she does. Many of the defendants have talked about her “Jekyll and Hyde” behaviour, and Mr Gearing accepts that he did say to Mr Verdier once that he was surprised that she had not been sectioned. I am not satisfied that the allegation as pleaded “on occasions too numerous to particularise…” is made out. This would not, in any event, amount to harassment or anti-social behaviour.

The allegations against Ms Melesi contained in paragraphs 29 (40), (41), (42) and (45) are with respect to Ms Melesi repairing and maintaining conduits on the Abbotsley land pursuant to the authority given by Pheasantland and I do not find any of these allegations made out. Had Ms Saunders not wrongfully interfered with the supply of water then there would not have been any requirement for repair.

The allegation in paragraph 29(39) that Ms Melesi entered Ms Saunders drive and that amounted to a trespass is wrong in law. There is an implied licence to enter a driveway as, otherwise, anyone would be of trespass going up to someone’s door.

Ms Saunders has now withdrawn her allegation that footpath 11 no longer exists, but she persists with her allegations against Ms Melesi that she has strayed off the footpaths 5, 10 and 11 contained in paragraphs 29(38), (44), (46), (47), (48), (49). I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Saunders has been able to establish that Ms Melesi has gone off the footpaths save for the gap between footpaths 10 and 11 where walkers go across land belonging to the local farmers and which is of no interest or concern to Ms Saunders. There was an incident brought to my attention by Ms Saunders after the close of evidence. It is not part of the case and Ms Melesi accepts that she went off the footpath in order to recover a tag for her dog. I am not going to make a determination with respect to an incident which was brought to the court’s attention after the close of evidence. I am sure that Ms Melisi will not do it again. It is sad that Ms Saunders is not able to accept Ms Melesi could recover her dog’s tag in this way and feels the need to place cameras over open land in the way she does. It is not something that would give rise to any damages – there is no identifiable damage – and there is no harassment.. If I had found that there was any inadvertent “straying” from footpaths then that is not something which I find results in damages in the circumstances of this matter, and there has been no harassment.

I accept Ms Melesi’s evidence that she did not inform Joe Jefferies that she had deliberately trespassed on Abbotsley land for 8 miles, as I have found her to be a totally honest and straightforward witness while I have found Ms Saunders to have deliberately endeavoured to mislead the court – including for the purpose of placing individual defendants in a poor light. The allegation in paragraph 29(43) is dismissed.

With respect to the allegation in paragraph 31(50), as I have set out above, while I accept that Ms Melesi was recorded by microphones or cameras hidden by Ms Saunders, to have been swearing at the sky, this does not amount to an act of harassment or anti-social behaviour. It was a release of stress caused by the situation at Abbotsley and the atmosphere created by Ms Saunders and her behaviour.

The allegations in paragraphs 31(51), (52), (53) have gone as the claim against Mr Newland is settled.

The allegation against Mr Lance Honeywill contained in paragraphs 31(56) is not made out as he was acting with other owners of the lodges to restore the water supply that Ms Saunders had wrongly interfered with. The allegations against Lance Honeywill contained in paragraph 31 (54) is not established as I do not accept Ms Saunders’ evidence as she has been shown, with the existence of physical evidence, that she is willing to seek to mislead the court and I therefore do not accept her uncorroborated accounts. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 31(55), (59), (60), and (61), the offensive language was undoubtedly used by Mr Lance Honeywill as an expression of his deep anger and frustration about the way he and others are treated by Ms Saunders. The language cannot be condoned in anyway. There is no evidence that anyone was alarmed or distressed by his words and, as the coffee shop incident reveals, Ms Saunders was very keen to lay traps for Mr Honeywill to lose his temper and use offensive language against her. Neither Simon nor Joe Jefferies said that they felt intimidated by him and there is absolutely no evidence of him using violence against anyone.

Ms Wisson did say that Mr Honeywill gesticulated towards her car and that he called her a “fucking cunt” and gesticulated towards her (allegation 31(57) and (58)) and she was not challenged on that (although I am not certain that Mr Honeywill was in court when this piece of evidence was given). The allegations are credible but must be considered in the context of what was happening at Abbotsley. It is important that Ms Wisson says Mr Honeywill backed off and that she was not physically threatened. It was undoubtedly unpleasant for her but it did not impact Ms Saunders in any way she established. Ms Wisson is not herself a party to the proceedings.

The allegation against Mr Lance Honeywill that he trespassed on the Jenny Wisson wood is withdrawn and therefore dismissed. Mr Honeywill is entitled to enter the wood as it is open to the public as I have found.

The allegations of trespass against Mr Darren Honeywill contained in paragraphs31 (62), (64), (65), and (67) are all incidents when Darren Honeywill entered the Abbotsley as an agent of Pheasantland for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the pipes that had been wrongly interfered with by Ms Saunders and her agents where she deliberately interrupted the water supply to Abbotsley. These allegations are dismissed. The allegation contained in paragraph 31(63) is accepted by Darren Honeywill to the extent that he cut a chain and glued down a manhole cover in an attempt to prevent further interference with the supply of water to Abbotsley Country Homes. The cost involved is not specified as that will depend upon the length and size of the chain but I suspect it is unlikely to be more than about £20. With respect to the gluing down of the manhole cover it has not been suggested that this was anything permanent and it appears it was remedied. The allegation is not made out with respect to removing the cameras.

The allegations against Mr Steele contained in paragraphs 31(68), (69), (70), (71) and (72) relating to the maintenance and repairing of the conduits on the Abbotsley land by restoring the water supply wrongfully cut off by Ms Saunders do not amount to a trespass and are dismissed. The allegation of entering the Jenny Wisson wood is withdrawn by Ms Saunders and is therefore dismissed. The Jenny Wisson wood is open to the public pursuant to the extant section 106 agreement entered into by Ms Saunders enabling her to sell the Lease of the land with the benefit of planning permission.

I am satisfied that Ms Holliman has not trespassed on the sheep filed as is alleged in paragraph 31(74) and that allegation is dismissed. The allegations of trespass onto the Jenny Wisson woodland contained in paragraph 31(75) is dismissed as the Jenny Wisson wood is open to the public. The allegation contained in paragraph 31(77) that unpleasant remarks have been made about Ms Saunders on Facebook has been withdrawn and therefore dismissed.

The allegations made against Ms Seiler have all been withdrawn at trial, save for the one incident on 25 July 2022 (contained in paragraph 31(79)). The allegations that have been withdrawn, without any apology from Ms Saunders for pursuing Ms Seiler, are all dismissed. Ms Seiler accepts that she went onto the Abbotsley on 25 July 2022 as she was confused by what was happening and took photographs in accordance with the advice given by the police. This very minor trespass does not sound in damages and only happened because of the interference in the water supply by Ms Saunders.

Ms Saunders has said that she does not continue to “pursue” Mr Warren now he is dead. The allegations contained in paragraphs 31(82) to 31(89) are all formally dismissed.

The allegations against Mr Brindley contained in paragraphs 31(90) to (95) are not proceeded with in this trial as that is being dealt with in another trial. Ms Saunders has not yet sought to withdraw any allegations against Mr Brindley.

The allegation against “Colm” contained in paragraph 31(96) is dismissed as Ms Saunders has withdrawn it. The allegation contained in paragraph 31(97) is that “Colm” parked a white van – there is no trespass. Ms Saunders’ behaviour towards the individual defendants is recorded on videos. On the balance of probabilities, “Colm” may have sworn at Ms Saunders but it was a single incident and cannot amount to harassment. It is to be noted that it is highly unusual for someone to bring a civil claim because they are sworn at. With respect to the allegation contained in paragraph 31(98) there is no medical evidence that Mr Verdier’s nose and ribs had been broken. “Colm’s” evidence was that he caught Mr Verdier when he shut the door on him and that after the incident Mr Verdier and he spent the afternoon on the outside decking. I prefer “Colm’s” evidence to Mr Verdier who, on the basis of Ms Saunders’ assertions, suffers from dementia. In any event it is not explained what claim Ms Saunders is bringing. The allegation contained in paragraph 31(99) is denied and I accept the evidence of “Colm”. The allegation in 31(100) is, in my judgment, entirely made up. Mr Verdier’s evidence entirely lacks credibility and I do not accept it.

Consequently, of the 100 allegations made by Ms Saunders, I find two made out. Ms Seiler inadvertently went onto the land on 25 July 2022. She only took photographs in response to Joe Jefferies taking photographs of her. She was not there to repair or support in the repair of the water supply wrongfully interrupted by Ms Saunders. This does not sound in damages. I also find, on Darren Honeywill’s admission, that he cut through a chain and glued down a manhole cover in order to dissuade Ms Saunders from interfering with their water supply again. I have not been told the cost at this trial which was Ms Saunders’ opportunity to bring evidence of the cost. Consequently, there can be no award of damages.

The section 146 notice served by Abbotsley on Pheasantland on 3 January 2023 is accepted to be valid. Abbotsley can, of course, only rely upon the allegations set out in that section 146 notice for the purpose of seeking forfeiture of the Lease to Pheasantland.

In Expert Clothing Service v Hillgate House [1986] the purpose of the section 146 notice was summarised by Slade LJ in the following way:

“In a case where the breach is “capable of remedy” within the meaning of the section, the principal object of the notice procedure provided for by section 146(1) , as I read it, is to afford the lessee two opportunities before the lessor actually proceeds to enforce his right of re-entry, namely (1) the opportunity to remedy the breach within a reasonable time after service of the notice, and (2) the opportunity to apply for relief from forfeiture”

In a similar fashion to the first claim, the claim alleges numerous breaches of the Lease by Pheasantland. There are 51 paragraphs, many of which contain a number of sub-paragraphs of allegations. While it adds to the inordinate length of this judgment, it is necessary to deal with all the allegations as experience of this litigation indicates that points may be taken to ask for even more detail.

The following allegations contained in the Particulars of Claim with respect to the forfeiture claim are not set out in the section 146 notice and therefore cannot be relied upon:

I have dealt in this judgment with the evidence given by the individual lodge owners with respect to their occupation of their individual lodges and whether they have been in breach of their underleases. The issue for this court in determining whether the lease assigned to Pheasantland is forfeit is whether Pheasantland failed to enforce the obligations in its lease with Abbotsley. If the individual lodge owners were not in breach of their underleases with respect to their occupation of the lodges then there is nothing for Pheasantland to have remedied.

I have also dealt with the evidence of the three directors of Pheasantland: Mr Walker, Ms Beresford-Ambridge, and Mr Blackall and it is their evidence – particularly the evidence of Mr Walker – which is of greatest importance in establishing whether there have been breaches of the Lease by Pheasantland. All three of the directors of Pheasantland I found to be straightforward and honest in the giving of their evidence. As I have set out in various passages in this judgment, I do not consider Ms Saunders to be straightforward and honest and I have found her to have deliberately set out to mislead the court.

Pheasantland rely particularly upon the evidence of Mr Walker. I am satisfied that his evidence, as set out above, establishes that he has taken his responsibilities as an unpaid director of Pheasantland extremely seriously and has worked extremely hard to ensure that Abbotsley Country Homes is run as well as it could be. The stress that has been suffered by the residents of the “chalet land” has not been caused by Pheasantland. The only major area of friction between Pheasantland and the owner/occupiers is with respect to the costs of this litigation. That is a matter which has, as I understand it, been dealt with by the FTT and may now be subject to an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Despite this friction, the evidence from all of the defendants is that communications between Pheasantland and the owners/occupiers has always been pleasant and cordial. I have also seen from the correspondence that Mr Walker has remained calm and cordial towards Ms Saunders.

All of the lodge owners/occupiers deny using the lodges as permanent accommodation and submit that they use the lodges for holiday use only. The lodge owner who appears to be occupying his lodge the most, and contrary to both the 11 month maximum and the requirement to vacate in February, which applies to lodge 10, is Mr Verdier against whom Abbotsley, through Ms Saunders, has made no allegations, either in the section 146 notice or in the Particulars of Claim.

Mr Verdier is someone who has endeavoured to assist Ms Saunders in her case and during the course of this trial it became apparent that Ms Saunders had been present, at least at some points, for the taking of Mr Verdier’s second statement which was recorded in Ms Saunders’ own home. I am not relying on Mr Verdier’s second statement, partly because of the way in which it has taken, partly because Mr Verdier himself said he was signing it “blind” and that he did not know what he was signing, and partly because Ms Saunders herself said that he was suffering from dementia and that would mean that he both suffers from memory loss and is very open to suggestions. Mr Verdier was also involved in the incident when Ms Saunders had to be warned against self-incrimination after she was provided with documentation from Mr Verdier at a time when she was embargoed from discussing the case with anyone as she was mid-cross examination.

In his evidence, Mr Verdier indicated that Ms Saunders had actually encouraged him to occupy his lodge contrary to the terms of the Lease which prohibit him from living in the lodge in February:

Ms Saunders’ failure to treat Mr Verdier in the same way as she treats the other owners/occupiers of the lodges undermines any argument that her having a desire to recover possession because of a genuine concern that the underlessees are being governed in the way that they should, so that her reversionary interest is not adversely affected. In fact, her eleventh witness statement dated 3 June 2025 provided an insight into Ms Saunders’ motivation where she says:

“I also explained the possibility of those lodge owners who had openly occupied their lodges as permanent residences – albeit in contravention of the lease and planning – being able to have a full residential lease through planning enforcement limitation. That is confirmed in the Whats App or text message from Carol Berwick in which she mistakenly referred to getting the freehold of a lodge. I had a long conversation with Paul Brennan on the subject and mentioned the possibility of full residential leases in certain circumstances – or even a retirement site with a warden.”

While I do not accept the submission made on behalf of the first defendant that it is a waiver to have as a “vision for the site” the very thing that it is said you wish to stop as it is a breach of the current lease terms (that is long term permanent residents), it certainly undermines any suggestion that there is a legitimate desire to prevent breaches of the lease in order to ensure that the land is only ever used for holiday accommodation. Individual defendants have intimated that they consider she wishes to recover the Lease so she can make a second substantial profit out of the land, in addition to the profit she made when she first granted the Lease of the “chalet land” to Luddington. Ms Saunders denies that her motivation is making a second profit and it is not an issue before me. What is important for this case is that it is a waiver to accept rent at a time when the alleged breach is known about. Ms Saunders alleges breaches from 29 June 2007 for lodge 1; from 20 May 2015 for lodge 3; from 2007 for lodge 4; from 18 April 2015 for lodge 5; from 19 December 2018 for lodge 6; from 4 October 2013 for lodge 8; from 9 December 2021 for lodge 9; from 16 February 2022 for lodge 12; from 10 December 2012 for lodge 14; from 28 September 2022 for lodge 15; from 14 February 2019 for lodge 16; from 12 September 2018 for lodge 17; from 20 October 2016 for lodge 18; from 17 April 2008 for lodge 19; and from 4 September 2016 for lodge 22. Ms Saunders last accepted rent on 31 December 2021. Other than lodge 12 (the Honeywills) and lodge 15 (Ms Berwick), Ms Saunders had accepted rent after knowing about the alleged breaches. That must be the end of her claim for forfeiture based on alleged breachewith respect to those lodges. With respect to lodges 12 and 15, the time between ownership of the lodges and the service of the section 146 notice was, as Ms Berwick set out, far too short to establish that they were living in the properties as their permanent accommodation.

Even if that is wrong, and Ms Saunders has not waived any breach by the acceptance of rent, there is no breach established.

The claimants rely upon three “limbs” – namely (i) use as permanent accommodation and/or businesses; (ii) breach of the obligation to vacate in February 2022 (lodges 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 19 and 22); and renting out other than as holiday accommodation (lodge 11).

Despite complaints to Huntingdonshire District Council with respect to the occupation of the chalets as more than holiday accommodation, the local planning authority have not determined that there is any breach of the planning restrictions despite evidence that there were lengthy investigations.

What is meant by “holiday accommodation” is not straightforward and there is no one statutory or common law definition. This is no doubt because it depends upon all the circumstances of the particular situation. The best example of that in this case is the fact that Ms Saunders accepts that Mr and Mrs Walker do not occupy their lodge other than for holiday accommodation and yet, many of the indicia relied upon to establish that others are using their lodge for something other than a holiday, are the same for them: there is no other registered address in the UK; they are on the electoral roll at Abbotsley; they are registered for both doctors and dentist; other correspondence, including bank accounts, is registered to be sent to the Abbotsley address; they have a car on their drive; their driving licences for the UK are registered at Abbotsley; the car is registered at Abbotsley; they spend their time in the UK at Abbotsley; and they pay Council Tax at the lodge.

Reliance is placed upon authorities dealing with the phrase “holiday lettings” that was contained in section 9 of the Rent Act 1999. In Buchanan v May [1978] 2 All ER 993, Sir John Pennycuick said that: “the Act contains no definition of the word “holiday”. The word is defined in the Short Oxford English Dictionary as “period of cessation of work, or period of recreation”. That definition, I think, is well enough if the word “recreation” is not too narrowly construed.” In Franke v Hakmi [1984] CLY 1906 provided that holiday within section 9 was “… temporary suspension of one’s normal activity not necessarily implying a period of recreation. A temporary suspension involves such a period of time as would indicate that one intends to resume one’s normal activity at its conclusion and that period is not so long as to imply that another activity had taken its place.” In McHale v Daneham (1979) 249 EG 969, it was held that there could be a “working holiday” regardless of the dictionary definition of the word “holiday”.

Section 9 of the Rent act 1977 dealt with the situation of renting out a property for the purpose of a tenant having a holiday. This is a different situation. These are substantial residences which are sold on valuable long leases (approximately £250,000 each) and I do not accept that the planning definition of holiday accommodation is assisted greatly by judicial interpretation of the Rent Act. Of more assistance is the guidance contained both from the local authority and the guidance contained within the Estate Manual.

Most of the owners of these lodges are retired and it is therefore not so easy to judge when they are at work or when they are on holiday. The length of time spent in the lodge does not, therefore, assist in ascertaining whether the owner is on holiday or whether it was their permanent residence. As Mr Walker put it, being on holiday is a break from the routine or, in essence, a state of mind or attitude.

All of the lodge owners were clear in their evidence that the lodge is not a property which they occupy permanently as their primary residence and that they treat it as their holiday home. In the letter from Huntingdonshire District Council dated 15 October 2012 to Mr Chatfield of PI Estates Limited, relied upon by Ms Saunders, that there is no limit on the time people can spent at a lodge so long as they are using it as holiday accommodation “it is the nature of their use, not the time people spend there, that determines whether the condition is being complied with”. Further the letter refers to various indicia that someone might be found not to be using the lodge as their holiday accommodation if they were sending their children to school from there or going to work from there or did not have an alternative address. None of this indicia are present here (Mr Darren Honeywill worked for a short while and had occasionally taken his children from school from there, but that immediately stopped and was, in any event, very much a temporary arrangement).

Ms Saunders relies upon a number of matters which she says support her case that each of these lodges is being occupied as permanent accommodation and contrary to the terms of the lease. None of these, in my judgment, either individually or cumulatively, establish that any of the defendants or other lodge owners (other than maybe Mr Verdier) are occupying the lodge as their permanent home. First the letter dated 10 March 2020 to Anglian Water was written at a time when Pheasantland were endeavouring to appease Ms Saunders to obtain an alternative water supply. They were not going to get anywhere with Anglian Water unless they made out that there was lengthy occupation of the lodges. It was known when the letter was written that lodge owners were not all occupying for that period of time. I do not accept the second point that there was a “general misunderstanding” amongst the Pheasantland directors that the lodges could be occupied up to 11 months in a year. What was understand, and what was correct, is that the lodges could not be occupied for more than 11 months.

I do not accept that the policy of Pheasantland is one which is to shield occupants from action, as is alleged by Ms Saunders. Subsequent to Pheasantland becoming the intermediate landlord in December 2017, the estates manual has been regularly updated setting out the obligations of the lodge owners; the requirement that the lodge is holiday accommodation and to be occupied for a limited period of time is specified and made clear to any owner or prospective owners; notified the lodge owners of the alleged breaches set out in the section 146 notice in order to ensure that if there was a breach, it would be remedied; has taken one lodge owner to the FTT to demonstrate a persistent breach of covenant; pursued and rectified breaches or potential breaches of covenant. I accept that Mr Walker takes his duties as a director of Pheasantland very seriously and does seek to “strictly enforce” the obligations contained in the lease. There are some constraints to the steps that can be taken and the obligation to strictly enforce has to be in the context that there is in fact a breach that has occurred. If there is no definite breach then there is nothing for Pheasantland to enforce – strictly or otherwise. The example has already been given with respect to whether a plant pot on the decking is in breach of the terms of the Lease – the fact that Pheasantland has not spent money it does not have to litigate the construction of the Lease on that point might be considered to be good management. There is nothing for it to strictly enforce.

It is wrong to suggest, as it has been in closing submissions that “the majority of the occupants of the Chalet Land were using the properties as permanent residences and not as holiday accommodation.” That is not factually accurate, although I appreciate that it is something that Ms Saunders says forcefully (in the same way as she has made other false allegations forcefully).

With respect to the fourth point made in the claimants’ closing submissions on this particular point, I do not accept that Ms Beresford-Ambridge or Mr Blackall were in permanent occupation. The fact that they were named as people to contact does not establish their permanent occupation and their evidence about where and how they live their lives clearly contradicts that thesis. Reference should be made to the section of this judgment which deals with the evidence of the individuals.

The fifth point of the claimants’ submissions returns to the point made by Mr Walker. All those indicia relied upon do not in fact show whether someone is permanently resident in the lodge or using it as holiday accommodation. Mr Walker, as a director, knows that if those questions were asked then it would not have revealed anything to Pheasantland as it would, on the claimants’ thesis, have suggested he was not occupying the lodge as holiday accommodation. Further, as is set out above, “it is the nature of their use, not the time people spend there, that determines whether the condition [to use as holiday accommodation] is being complied with”.

With respect to Mr Verdier’s second statement, that cannot be relied upon for the reasons I have already set out. It is not “deemed accepted.” It was during the challenge by the first defendant that Ms Saunders started sobbing loudly and the proceedings had to stop in order that her counsel could inform me that Ms Saunders was upset because Mr Verdier had dementia.

The last two points, with respect to occupation during covid and the winter fuel allowance, have no weight. The reason for people occupying the lodges during covid is simply that if they were there, they could not move. The individual lodge owners have all given evidence with respect to that. With respect to the winter fuel allowance, the eligibility for that is if an individual is resident on a particular day during a specified week in September. It has never been explained why Ms Saunders is so fixated on the winter fuel allowance being clear evidence of occupation of the lodge as a permanent home.

I have already dealt with all the allegations set out in the 14 further pages of schedule contained within the closing submissions on behalf of the claimants with the evidence of the individuals. For the reasons I have already given in detail, I do not accept that the individual lodge owners were in occupation of those lodges as their permanent homes. Importantly, even if I am wrong about an individual lodge owner, Pheasantland was not aware of the occupation of the lodges and is therefore not in breach of the terms of the Lease with Abbotsley. At no time did Pheasantland fail in its obligations to ensure compliance with the terms of the leases.

The covenant not to occupy the lodges in February was one which Ms Saunders tried to have altered to only being a restriction to occupy for 11 months. The February restriction applied to a limited number of the lodges 2 and 10. As set out elsewhere in this judgment, no section 146 notice was served with respect to Mr Verdier in lodge 10 and no proceedings have been brought against him. The allegation is only against the occupiers of the other lodges. The evidence relied upon by the claimant is the evidence of the process servers. As I have set out above, that evidence does not support the allegation made and the owners of those lodges do not accept that they were in occupation of their lodges in February 2022. These allegations are therefore dismissed.

This is an allegation made specifically against Mr Dedynski at lodge 11. As is set out above, 11 Abbotsley Country Homes is used as a holiday let through Magpie Property Management Limited (“Magpie”) in St Neots. Magpie are instructed by Mr Dedynski only to let the property for holiday lets and not any other type of agreement, each let being for 1 week up to 3 months total. The tenancy agreement makes it clear that the lodge is not used to be used to run a business or as a base from which to travel and to and from work and is a holiday let. There was one occasion when he had let the property to a Simon Williams and Lucy Nevill and he was informed by Magpie in early 2023 that there was an allegation that the lodge had been used for running a business. Mr Dedynski promptly served a notice to quit and the tenants left.

Paragraph 12(48) alleges that Ms Beresford-Ambridge (lodge 6), Virginia Melesi (lodge 9), Linda Davies (lodge 16), and Alan Walker (lodge 20) are in breach of clause 7 of the First Schedule to the underleases by erecting a large shed on their plots. The issue of the sheds has been dealt with already in this judgment, particularly in the evidence of Mr Walker, where he dealt with the fact that on 10 January 2023, he wrote to Ms Saunders in response to her letter of 3 January 2023 that they had erected a large shed contrary to the provisions of clause 7. Mr Walker set out that they had erected an external store but had done so with the authority of PI Estates and in accordance with planning permission – it being a store of a particular type and in a particular location as specified by the planning permission. He also set out that a series of letters had been sent by her on behalf of Abbotsley in 2010 consenting to the erection of the external storage sheds.

Ms Saunders did not respond to that letter and it therefore appears that at that time she accepted that the sheds were legitimately on the land. The evidence supports that consent had been given for sheds, of a certain type and erected in a particular location. Ms Saunders was not disagreeing with what was said to her in 2023. I am satisfied that all the sheds she now complains about are of the type and in the location for which permission has been given. The allegation contained in 12(48) therefore is dismissed.

With respect to the allegation contained in paragraph 12(49), this is yet another allegation which has no substance at all.

When Ms Saunders was wrongfully interfering with the supply of water to the “chalet land” the owners and occupiers of the lodges were keen to find an alternative source in order that they could not be in such a perilous situation that they were without water whenever Ms Saunders decided to cut off their supply. In the circumstances, they looked to see if they could obtain an alternative supply. Unfortunately they could not.

Ms Saunders agreed to the suggestion that they drill for a bore hole. The actual (rather than alleged) email dated 18 April 2019 was not a “flippant remark”. It was a angry communication from Ms Saunders when she said that the “chalet land” was not “our responsibility” (despite the terms of the Lease) and in 2022 Ms Beresford-Ambridge noted the need to get permission but that Ms Saunders “could hardly refuse”. Of course the email dated 19 April 2019 was to Mr Walker and Ms Saunders had confirmed her agreement to Ms Melesi. In the course of being cross-examined, the evidence having been put to her that she had said that Pheasantland could drill their own borehole in order to find their own source of water, Ms Saunders accepted that she had given consent. There cannot be a breach of the Lease in circumstances where she gave consent. Even if she had not admitted it in cross examination, it is clear that she gave consent and the allegation is therefore dismissed. Further, it was clear that the borehole, which I am told was near to lodge12 rather than lodge 10, could not longer be seen on the ground.

The claimants allege that in breach of clause 3.6.1 of the Lease that Pheasantland has failed to insure and keep insured or to procure the insurance of the Property (the “chalet land”) against Insured Risks in respect of the entirety of what Ms Saunders calls the “caravan site”. The insurance certificate provided by Pheasantland has been read erroneously by Ms Saunders and her counsel. The insurance certificate provides that it is providing cover for “the road way, sewage plant, agtes [gates], and landscaping at the Abbotsley Country Homes sites only.” Paragraph 12(50) is therefore dismissed.

The allegations of nuisance, damage and disturbance contained in paragraph 12 (51)(i) to (viii) of the Particulars of Claim, whether allegedly committed collectively or independently, are dismissed in their entirety for the reasons already set out in this judgment. The defendants identified in these paragraphs did not commit any act of nuisance, damage and disturbance. When on the land to repair the water supply that Ms Saunders had wrongfully interfered with, the individuals were acting under the authority of Pheasantland. They were maintaining and repairing the conduits that Pheasantland were obliged to keep in repair under the terms of the lease, the damage having been caused by Ms Saunders. There was no nuisance or disturbance. The interference was from Ms Saunders for the reasons already set out in detail and which I will not repeat.

The allegation against Pheasantland is that there was a failure to enter into deeds of covenant and warranties. The contention on the part of Abbotsley and Ms Saunders is that the breaches cannot be excused by being “historic” and that the deeds of covenants and warranties were important as they provided ongoing protection for the landlords. The closing submissions of the claimants set out that the issue is expressly raised in relation to lodge 8 being rented out as a permanent home (12(18)), that lodge 11 was being used as a permanent home (12 (24)) in breach planning obligations; that there was a failure to obtain a deed of covenant upon assignment with respect to lodges 4,7,9,11, 12, 15, 16 and 17; that there was a failure to obtain a written warranty that the lodges are tourist accommodation (lodges 4,7,9,11,12,15,16 and 17)).

Pheasantland rely upon the fact that both the deed of covenant and the written warranties are a positive covenant and are therefore capable of remedy. Ms Saunders confirmed that “the copy of the deed of covenant relating to lodge 8 was in the form agreed for the site many years ago.” Once that confirmation was given, by Ms Saunders, Mr Walker ensured that all the required deeds of covenant were drawn up and executed using that wording so that each deed of covenant provides the warranty that is required.

Pheasantland was not aware of the breach until the service of the section 146 notice. The situation is therefore not the same as it was in British Petroleum Pension Board v Behrendt (1986) 18 HLR 42. In BP Pension Board, the defendant “deliberately shut his eyes to what he knew or ought to have known was taking place on the premises and made no attempt to keep an eye on then when he was living no more than a mile away [the premises were being used as a brothel] or to heed the warnings from plaintiffs save when they were backed up the service of section 146 notices, I am of the opinion that it would be quite wrong to grant relief from forfeiture in this case.” Nor is it the same as in Patel v K&J Restaurants Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1211, where information from the police had provided reasonable grounds for suspecting that the flat was being used as a brothel. In this case, there was nothing to indicate to the directors of Pheasantland that the deeds of covenant had not been entered into.

I am satisfied that this is a breach capable of remedy and that it was remedied. The concerns that had been expressed with respect to whether the deeds had been posted to Ms Saunders do not seem to continue to be a concern (given the lack of reference in the closing submissions) and have not been made out.

This is an unusually lengthy judgment for these two consolidated cases. It has been necessary to deal in detail with the many allegations and issues in the cases which are set out above. The outcome is that the claimant has failed to succeed in her two claims, which are dismissed in their entirety. The counterclaim is allowed.

Consequential matters arising out of this judgment need to be dealt with by agreement or through further submissions – which I am happy to deal with in writing or by way of a further hearing.